Hypothetical comment follows...
Surely there is a practical, if not legal, "middle ground", which (knowingly or otherwise) is exactly where the OP is standing on this issue. Purchasing 1 license is better than none, but not "as good" (or "as legal") as buying 2.
What about a small business environment who have 50 Windows licenses, but for various reasons find themselves running 54 Windows PCs for about two weeks, while moving some users from one office to another. Legal? No. But also far from "steal everything", which is the only alternative according to you.
What about John, who buys every piece of software on his PC, but can't afford a license for Photoshop. He doesn't actually use Photoshop for anything, but every now and again he is sent a file in PSD format and needs to convert it into something his preferred editor (say Paint.NET) can use, so he installs a pirated copy. Legal? No. But again, it's a little different from "steal everything".
This is all hypothetical of course, since using illegal software IS wrong and none of the above situations are valid reasons for doing so. I just wanted to comment that even though your moral code only allows for the extremes of "legal" and "steal everything", this is only one point of view.
Legally you are correct - it's all or nothing.
I disagree.
The OP has gone through the "hassle and expense" of purchasing a single OS license.
Why?
When all he has done is immediately invalidated those licenses by installing it on more than one PC.
He is no more legal than somebody who had pirated their software - there is no point spending money on licenses and then breaking the license agreements.
You are spending money to end up in the same position as somebody who spent nothing and illegally downloaded everything.
With regards the small office environment, I don't see how that can ever happen.
At 50-60 users then most businesses will buy PC's with OEM licenses, so all machines will be covered.
Once you number over 60 then you should be on volume licensing of some description.
We for example can install Office, Project & Visio on any number of machines - we only need to declar new installations at the end of each license year.
So we can never be license illegal (yes, we can say we've got 20 office installs, take on 50 new people, give them office and without paying another penny we remain license legal for a further 11 months).
You've already said matey doesn't need photoshop.
So, he can buy photoshop elements for a very reasonable price.
Or simply stop using a file format he doesn't own the applications that are required to use them.
I really do not see any middle ground at all.
If you use software then you should pay for it (if it falls under a commercial license).
There really is no situation where you can use commercial software for free and it be OK - you are still thieving (please don't go on about the "it isn't theft argument - a rose by any other name.....) and the people who spent time developing the product are not getting paid, yet some people feel its OK to continue using it.
