As a software developer myself (who does occasionally work with proprietary commercial software, too), I find it silly that vendors don't show the contracts up front, before one makes the purchase decision, including any kind of end-user agreements. It isn't difficult, and your competitors will trivially find them out if they care, so it's not "business sensitive" in any way.
For free/open source software, those that use copyright licenses and not EULAs, the situation is simpler because the user always has the permissions given by copyright law (including to use the software at least in EU), and the copyright license only extends those rights, and really worry about distribution and derivative works rather than how the user uses the software. If you break a copyright license, you only lose the rights to distribute copies and create derivative works, not the right to use the software.
For proprietary but zero-cost software, the install-time user agreement is acceptable, because the user can simply decline. It makes business sense to show the EULA before the user starts the download, because that way users wishing to decline do not have to download large amount of data for no reason, but is not an absolute requirement.
Thus, we should ask Segger why they do this. It is odd, and likely drives away more customers than would ever "break" their EULA in any way that Segger actually cares. Is it all just to soothe the non-technical, non-copyright-savvy Cxx higher-ups in the company? Doesn't sound likely, looking at their history and background.
I can understand that Segger wants to monetize both the software and the hardware, and avoid any situation where a potential paying customer might instead use the less-profitable-to-Segger "EDU" versions, which they probably intended only as a way to hook students into their software and hardware ecosystem, so that when they move to the workforce, they'd suggest the companies they work for to use Segger products. This is clear, and quite normal.
What is odd is that Segger is a German company, and should be well aware of EU laws concerning non-business customers (including relevant contract law). It seems almost like they're using the "EDU" version EULA as a scare tactic only, knowing well that if they were to sue a private customer about the EDU version EULA violation (remember, it's a contract; we're not talking about copyright law violations like distributing copies here), the court would be rather likely to rule for the private customer, and might even rule the EULA "unfair".
It must be a pretty cold risk-cost-benefit calculation.