So according to Wikipedia there is a specific statute that expressly disavows the notion that someone who bought a copy of a computer program would infringe by running it (17 USC 117), the court found that a repair tech wasn't the owner of the copy so the statute didn't apply, and Congress immediately passed another law reversing the effect of the court's decision.
I guess that's technically what I asked for, but I don't think pointing out the existence of that statute does much for the argument that you need a separate license to run a computer program you paid for.
Let's try this again: Can you cite a relevant case that hasn't subsequently been invalidated?
> About six months ago I wrote an OS X app (and browser extension) that tracked all my computer usage. It never grew past a prototype, but I'm thinking of starting work on it again.
> Most countries have a 'if you're born here, you get our citizenship automatically' (I'm not sure about China specifically, just using it as an example).
That principle is called 'jus soli'[1], and is far from universal. Only ~15% of all nations confer it. A few more grant it under restricted conditions. China is emphatically _not_ one of those countries.
> But what about this compromise: Skype voice conversation + skype text-chat for showing each other code snippets.
I've been using this combination for a few weeks now, working on a development project with a partner who is ~1000 miles away. Besides voice and text, Skype also has screen sharing. All three parts have become essential to how we work.
