> On Feb 9, 2017, at 11:16 AM, Liam Proven <lpro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9 February 2017 at 18:06, geneb <ge...@deltasoft.com> wrote:
>> If you don't (at least) have the official distribution media, then
>> TECHNICALLY you'd be violating the copyright. Otherwise, it's nonsense.
>
>
> AIUI -- and IANAL -- this is correct, yes.
Copying without permission of the copyright owner would be a copyright
violation. Some licenses permit wide copying (open source). And of course
software might be in the public domain (no copyright) -- that's rare but it
does happen.
> The issue here is not running the software, it's _owning_ the
> software. This sometimes ties in to ownership of the vendor's hardware
> it was intended to run on.
Yes... the question now shifts to the software license rather than the
copyright.
> Apple is slightly different -- the licence for Mac OS X stipulates
> that you're only allowed to run it on Apple-branded hardware. This is
> somewhere between rare and unique, though, and it has recently been
> relaxed slightly to permit use of hypervisors.
Unusual in the personal computer era, yes.
> But otherwise, so long as you own the software or a licence thereto,
> you can run it on whatever you want, in most cases.
Not for pre-PC software. Look at DEC licenses, for example. They are for
running the software on DEC systems. Quite often, on specific models. Quite
possibly, only on the particular machine you had when you purchased the
license. Sometimes (for example, IBM mainframes) the license is for a limited
time (a year, perhaps) rather than perpetual. If you sell the hardware, the
software license may be tranferable to the new hardware owner, or it may not be.
The reality is that licenses can say many different things, and have over the
decades. Trying to extrapolate from PC software practice will give you
misleading answers because those practices are comparatively recent. The right
answer is: read the license.
paul
