and sell 13,000 copies of book, but not 300,000 additional copies); Kennedy v. Nat’l Juvenile Det. Ass’n, 187 F.3d 690, 694 (7th Cir.1999) (construing “a nonexclusive license to reproduce, publish, and use Kennedy’s copyrighted report”); MacLean Assocs., Inc. v. Wm. M. Mercer-Meidinger-Hansen, Inc., 952 F.2d 769, 779 (3d Cir.1991) (finding implied nonexclusive license to develop and use software for one external account but no others). A copyright owner can grant a nonexclusive license “orally, or may even be implied from conduct.... In fact, consent given in the form of mere permission or lack of objection is also equivalent to a nonexclusive license and is not required to be in writing.” Shaver, 74 F.3d at 775; see also Jacob Maxwell, Inc. v. Veeck, 110 F.3d 749, 752 (11th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). “ ‘A licensee infringes the owner’s copyright
holding that nonexclusive license was created by the copyright owner giving permission and failing to object despite his knowledge of the use of his song holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting a defendants chain of custody challenge despite an officers  plainly careless handling of an object recovered from the crime scene and his inability to locate the object for eight months because the officer eventually found the object in his evidence locker and was able to account for its whereabouts during the entire time period holding that petitioner had forfeited his right to object to psychiatric testimony by failing to raise the claim on initial appeal holding that statutory grounds for recusal can be waived both by failing to object and by failing to assert error on appeal holding that a defendant waived a sentencing issue by failing to object in district court