It not a free copy. If you use this and they have proof, you would be sued for violating the licenses. Its the same as stealing. Just because they aren't locking you out doesn't mean you can use it.
Notice that I'm not making some philosophical point about software, I'm saying if the license to something says that you must have purchased it to use it, to use it without said license is to "appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully".
"Appropriate", the verb, is also flexible and also does not imply depriving someone of something. You can "appropriate" something when you create art, and you can be accused of "cultural appropriation", but in neither case is anyone deprived of what you appropriated.
So shut up. The argument about semantics is shit and you should stop repeating it.
Quit naming, start describing.
Collins: to take (something) from someone, etc. without permission or unlawfully, esp in a secret manner
Both of these trivially apply here.
Much as it is tiresome but legitimate for trademark holders to challenge misuse of their marks lest they become generic.