Final testing for game fails.

[herenvardo]

While IANAL, from what I understand a license isn't required to simply run a program.

To "simply run" a copy of Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition, to put an example, I had to agree (when I bought my laptop) to an "End User License Agreement" which, personally, I don't even like (I don't mind too much, however, as long as I have my Kubuntu on my other HD and I can run WoW on this Windows). In general, for all (or almost all) commercial software products we have to agree to, and pay for, a license.

once you've legitimately acquired a program

How do you prove that you've legitimately acquired it?

it has been argued by some that the act of loading a piece of software into RAM constitutes 'making a copy'

Technically speaking, loading a piece of software into RAM (in order to run it) means exactly to make a copy of it into the RAM. Have you ever noticed that many licenses say something about "making copies in durable media?

Despite all of this, I'm neither a lawyer and, while I've consulted lawyers and law students many times and have learned many things about copyright law, don't take this as legal advice, as I could be mistaken or miss-remember some things.
Finally, I want to emphasize a point from my last post:

I hope you won't take legal actions against such person

With that I meant that taking such legal actions would be quite absurd.
Anyway, these forums form a community from which lots of software are produced, and all (or maybe almost all, I've not checked one by one) of these software products either are free to use, or you have to pay for them before you get able to even download or anyhow get them; so no matter who's right about this point, this will always be irrelevant in most of cases. I think I shouldn't have mentioned this "issue" on my previous post; but I also think software should always be distributed with a license, so users know what they can and cannot do with the software.

[Jake]

How do you prove that you've legitimately acquired it?

As it goes, I believe that in most jurisdictions the burden of proof is typically on the prosecution in such cases - they would have to prove that you illegally acquired it if they wanted to assert that, you are innocent until proven guilty.

Technically speaking, loading a piece of software into RAM (in order to run it) means exactly to make a copy of it into the RAM. Have you ever noticed that many licenses say something about "making copies in durable media?

Oh, of course, from a technical point of view it's quite patently 'making a copy'. At this point the license is irrelevant, however, since this hypothetical software isn't distributed with one. What is relevant is copyright law, and copyright's provisions toward making copies are strictly concerned with marketability of the work from the point of view of the copyright owner, and distribution. Making a copy into RAM does not involve distribution to a third party, nor does it in any way affect the marketability of the work, so it is quite reasonable to assume that copyright law probably doesn't care whether or not you load the validly-acquired software into your RAM. Further, presuming that you have validly acquired the software, one could argue that it is inherently useless if you can't load it into RAM, therefore whatever mechanism provided you with the software also provided you with the license to at least use it. Similarly, playing a music CD is making a [not perfect] copy of the sound which was originally recorded onto that CD, but you don't need an explicit license to listen to music, it's implicit in your purchase of the CD.

(Some jurisdictions may well differ, of course. For example, it only relatively recently became technically legal in the UK to rip your CDs to MP3s.)

I also think software should always be distributed with a license, so users know what they can and cannot do with the software.

As I understand it, licenses are contracts, the acceptance of the contract is implied by performing actions that are only legally allowed via the terms of the license. Contracts provide benefits to both parties, or they are not contracts. Therefore, I would suggest that a license is only necessary or even applicable at all when you wish to grant permissions to the user above and beyond those afforded by having a copy of the software.

(Commercial software licenses do tend to take the tack that "use of the software" is a privilege which they can afford to you in order to make you accept the various terms of the EULA, but I believe it's for this very reason - that legally acquiring the software probably gives you the implicit right to use it - that EULAs are on legally dodgy ground in at least some jurisdictions.)

I do tend to agree, though, it's generally a good idea to include a license or some reminder of your copyright over the work and the things this entails so that the user knows where they stand, simply because it's polite and also because most people don't have the first clue about copyright law.

[PyTom]

I will just add to this that, in the US, 17 USC 117(a) explicitly allows the making of a copy of a computer program provided "that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner".

So in the US, no license is required to run a program you rightfully own. (However, from what I understand, courts are split on if agreeing to a license can revoke this right.)