I will mainly talk about the practical consequences and not go into the nitty gritty. By GPL compatible I mean that a GPL project can use your code (NOT you can use GPL code).
The MIT and BSD 2 clause licenses have similar requirements: keep the license file. The BSD 3 clause license adds a term to the BSD 2 that prevents someone from claiming false ...
Some open source licenses do specifically grant the right to run the software.
For example, the MIT license says:
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
"Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to ...
Both the Free Software and Open Source definitions include the freedom to run programs for any purpose:
Free Software Definition: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
Open Source Definition: 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific ...
On a typical computer, when you run a program you copy it from permanent storage (disk or equivalent) into RAM. A copyright holder that were being difficult could attempt to argue that running a program was therefore equivalent to copying it, with all the obligations that implies.
I imagine most courts would look fairly scathingly at this kind of shenanigans,...