This is more than a suspected violation. It is a violation.
It is opinion not supported by merit or the facts of the situation.
let's ignore the law for a minute.
Oh, that's just funny... and a bit ironic, wouldn't you say?
But I'm doing this on a matter of principle, are you?
Oh yes.
If so, I want to understand why.
I found your postulation intriguing. Let's explore it..
Do you think it's morally acceptable for a knowledge worker who creates something to not have control over his or her creations?
That greatly depends on what is defined as "control".
Do you have the right to profit and/or benefit from your creation?
Absolutely. But there are limitations to that right. See below..
Do you have the right to limit or control distribution?
Within certain boundaries, yes but not completely.
Do you have to right to dictate the terms of use within the context of personal citizen usage?
Absolutely NOT.
Why?
Because you have NO RIGHTS at all to instruct or enforce adherence of use terms where personal use is concerned. You can try, you will fail, morally AND legally.
Do you have the right to dictate terms of use within the context of business entity use?
Absolutely YES, and almost without limits.
Why?
Because business entities(governments, for profit & not for profit organizations) are not in the same class of legal entities as citizens. Personal rights do not apply to entities. You have the right to nearly completely dictate terms to an entity, whether they like it or not.
Do you have the right to control resale of a creation you have sold?
No.
Why?
Why should you? When an oil paint artist sells/gives away a painting, he surrenders a great measure of control of that painting to the person/entity offering payment, if any. Said artist has ZERO claim of interest in any proceeds from a resale of that painting. Nor can that artist control or limit resale. However, the artist in most situations retains copyright(unless otherwise also sold/surrendered). In this way no one but the artist can sell copies or recreations of the original painting. This school of thought applies equally to books, movies and yes, software.
Can you claim a software license is not a sale in the context of a individual citizen?
No. If you give or
SELL a copy of software to a person, that person is in lawful possession of that copy of software, per defined legal statues under both civil and criminal law. As such they are ethically, legally and morally entitled to use that software in any way THEY see fit so long as it is within the confines of their PERSONAL use, with OR without the permission of the copyright holder. Additionally and most importantly, the United States Constitution protects the right of possession as to be the same as ownership in almost all situations, software included. This is the real reason why companies like microsoft willingly activate Windows/Office CDKeys regardless of that key status. They know full well that ultimately they must yield to personal use statues. They will not disclose this, but this is the reason.
Can you claim a software license is not a sale in the context of a business entity?
Yes. They are an entity and not entitled to the same rights as an individual.
I could care less whether or not anyone agrees or disagrees with anything/everything stated here. Most of it IS enforceable depending on the effort expended.
However, my motivation and set of principles should be abundantly clear here.
