Can usage of free software be restricted?

[J.B. Nicholson-Owens]

Eric Feliksik wrote:
> I don't like this. It's not realistic to read those licenses for normal 
> use.

What most people do is irrelevant here because the issue is how copyright law 
works, not what is convenient.  It is wise to read the licenses for one's 
software; sometimes you'll be surprised at what restrictions copyright holders 
try to get away with (Microsoft telling users of Microsoft Frontpage that they 
may not use the program to write a webpage that disparages Microsoft, 
BitKeeper's license tries to forbid use of development of a competitive code 
versioning system, etc.).  It is not clear what public display and performance 
means for software in US copyright law (although, Eben Moglen has noted, if 
use of GPL-covered software on a website for user-accessible web services is 
deemed a public display of the software, that would help gracefully solve a 
services issue being addressed in GPLv3).

The GPL doesn't license use--mere execution--of a program because in the FSF's 
view, US copyright law doesn't give copyright holders that power outside of a 
license or encryption manager.

Other free software licenses mention use, and in so doing, indicate that the 
authors of those licenses believe they have the power to restrict use of the 
program.