alt Hacker NewsThis is just wrong. They could just sell copies instead of licenses. Copyright law doesn't care about interaction with already-existing copies, so mere usage of a software (and making archival copies) doesn't need a license at all
Replies
Ferret7446 • 10/12/2024
This is just wrong. "Mere usage" of a software does indeed need a license, just like "mere playback" of video requires a license. Remember all of the FBI warnings on movies warning you that you can't play the video publicly?
Running software without a license is literally illegal (at least in the US). Now, whether that is enforced, and to what extent in practice is a different story, just like how piracy in general is not really enforced against.
➕ show 1 reply
The fundamental problem with printed goods in general and software in particular is that they are so easy to copy.
A manufactured item is fairly hard to copy and the law on counterfeit goods is correspondingly weak. There is some law there, but it is hard to get it enforced, usually requires a court battle, etc. for example design of garments are infamously impossible to protect, garment manufactures tend to have to lean hard on trademark law to get any protection on design.
But printed works, It is easy to get a perfect copy, and computers are even worse. Trying to make a computer not copy something is like trying to make water that is not wet. This is the domain that copyright law started to appear. Basically laws explicitly saying you own what you wrote and get rights about decisions on when and where it can be copied.
But the point of my rather long-winded and incoherent rant is to say they can and do sell copies. when you buy a work those bits belong to you. you can do whatever you want with them... well, almost whatever you want with them. It is illegal to distribute them to others as this runs afoul of copyright law.