I'm not supporting the method or the company in this case, I'm just (as usual) playing devil's advocate. The "reasonable and ethical" individual is not who Siemens are after, I'm sure.
But I think a copyright lawyer would drive a coach and horses through that opening sentence -
Well, I don't accept their method.
By opening the software, by installing it, and by using it you are, quite explicitly and unambiguously, agreeing to their method. I know this is an issue which has been argued many, many times in many, many threads, but the "what is" and the "what should be" of software licensing are rarely ever the same.
I get as confused about this issue as anyone. I had bought a copy of jv16 Power Tools (highly recommended, BTW,
http://www.macecraft.com) for my PC at home. It's cheap and it works well and I've never had any problems with it. The other evening my wife's PC started throwing up a problem which I was sure I could fix or at least diagnose using jv16. Was I entitled to install it there and use it despite only having one licence? I actually had a look at the Macecraft web-site and forum and was delighted to see a dilemma described which was very close to mine. A PC repairer had bought jv16 and wanted to know what his legal position was when it came to trying to fix customers' problems at their premises. The response from the company was to install the s/w on the customers' machines and use it under the standard 30-day trial period that exists. Do this as often and and as widespread as you like. If the software is good enough presumably they felt this was as good a marketing tool as any and might even persuade the customers to buy it legitimately in the long-term.
So I installed it, used it, fixed the problem, and have now recommended them here on this forum. Viral marketing does work, it appears.
Regards
Ken