If the person copied it from a legitimate version of windows that they originally bought, couldn't one then argue that they did have a license that they then violated?
I guess the point I am making is that I don't think that line tracks.
> couldn't one then argue that they did have a license that they then violated?
It's a thin line, but I would say no as they only had a license for a single thing, while GPL is a license for any amount of usage. What was violated was the context of usage, not that illigal copies where made (I mean copies => copyright ;=) ).
But I had similar thoughts, it's a really thin line.
I guess the point I am making is that I don't think that line tracks.