That is the fundamental difference between a pure copyright license and a contract (eg EULA). A license can only grant you permission to do things you weren't a

That is the fundamental difference between a pure copyright license and a contract (eg EULA). A license can only grant you permission to do things you weren't able to do otherwise, while a contract can prohibit you from doing things you otherwise would be allowed to do in exchange for granting other permissions. Nothing in copyright law restricts the use of a product. If you legally purchase a book or movie, your are free to watch it whenever you want however often you want. Copyright only restricts copying, creating derivative works, redistributing (and public performance for certain types of work), not use. So to restrict use of software, you need a contract. An explicit goal of the FSF in writing all their licenses is that they do not restrict your existing rights, they only grant new (sometimes narrow) permissions. The courts seem less interested in this distinction, could potentially interpret it as a contract, but even if treated as a contract, it was still written to not restrict your existing rights.