[burnished]

Not a lawyer.

But, no, it isn't stealing, but no one was talking about theft here - copyright violation is a separate concept. I think in part the less than cold welcome you are receiving is due to this subtle but fundamental difference

[whitfieldsdad]

Ah, gotcha - I assumed that if some document said you couldn't use something for some purpose and you decided to use it anyway it would be considered theft from the intellectual property owner.

[burnished]

No, but there have been dedicated advertisement campaigns to convince you that they are the same thing. Theft specifically involves depriving some one else of their belongings, which is why the issue under discussion is copyright.

The way it works is more like when you create an original work you also possess the sole right to copy that work. I believe (80% confidence) that an independently derived work does not violate copyright, obviously easier to make a convincing case for instances like code or song lyrics where you genuinely expect the implementations to shake out the same from genuinely independent parties.

Sidenote, the document that says you cant copy something is the law. The documents I think you are referencing are licenses - the terms under which you are allowed to copy a work. The distinction I'm trying to make is that they can't extra forbid you, they just withhold their permission (as expressed in the license). Its not a super important distinction but I read up on it and felt compelled to share.