[jarpadat]

The main problem with the interpretation that the GPL sets conditions for use of software is that it specifically claims it does not:

> Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted,

Now there are some ways to try to do an end-run around this clause, it does raise some questions about how you get the right to run the program without "this License". But if we take the text seriously, it disclaims any restrictions on use.

This is the part where the derivative work standard comes in. Because if the GPL doesn't set conditions on use, your use of the software doesn't require complying with that license. The GPL would only enter in if you are going beyond mere use, e.g. are you making a legal derivative work (not the GPL definition)

(Not legal advice.)

[Borealid]

I find it difficult to imagine a situation in which you could use the library without copying the library. How would you obtain the code to execute it? Someone must distribute it to you, and/or you must copy it. Those are the governed actions.

EDIT: note that the GPL broadly doesn't impose restrictions on interacting with a program over a network ("using" a server), which is why the AGPL exists.

[jarpadat]

So, one answer (not necessarily the right one!) to how you can use software without copying it is that "the license says you can". In other words the license definitely views "running" and "copying" as distinct, regardless of you, me, or federal law.

The other, maybe more familiar idea to lawyers, and maybe more plausible to you, is the one in MAI v. Peak, that running is copying by definition. (The argument is based on the idea that running a program copies it into RAM, so we don't even need to talk about how you obtained the software.)

The way this shakes out is as follows:

a. If running the program is "not covered by this License", then we can stop reading the license and return to copyright law. But copyright law says we need a license to run (that is, to copy, MAI v. Peak) the program, so where do we get it, if not from "this license"? Bit of a puzzler.

b. If "running the Program is not restricted", maybe that sentence is by itself some kind of license to "run" the program, even though that contradicts the "not covered" part? If so, we need to understand what the license means by "run" which is evidently something different than "copy".

Very probably, what this clause originally meant was that people who think like MAI v. Peak are wrong and nobody should need a license to run software. If so, it's pretty challenging to turn around and argue "just kidding, they do"

[chriscappuccio]

It's ridiculous to expect that you can go after individual users for making single copies while not following your terms. You're going to sue someone for zero damages? For bruising your ego? Good luck with that.

For the same reason, an AGPL item could be enforceable, but only if the violator is juicy enough.