Mike Miller wrote: > - - - snip - - - > Let's take Irfanview for example... > > http://www.irfanview.com/ > > It's a nice little image viewer that I use on Windows computers. What > is unethical about using Irfanview? It is easy to use and I like it. > I know that I don't have source, I can't therefore modify and > distribute source, it obviously doesn't have a GPL-compatible > license. What is unethical about using it? Am I behaving > unethically, or is the developer behaving unethically, or both? If > there is something unethical about using Irfanview, I would think that > implies that someone is being harmed. Who is harmed by Irfanview or > by my use of Irfanview? > > I don't like to use Windows computers but it is often necessary. > > Mike If a government web site won't allow access, unless users use a particular software, is that unethical? If a school won't allow students access, unless they use a particular software, is that unethical? I think the ethics issue is one of whether it's appropriate to restrict access to digital telecommunications in a world largely dependent on software. RMS saw the dilemma decades ago, but it surely is sitting on our faces, now. If I may, it's interesting that in the world, today, in the heat of our worldwide financial crisis, there is a bank that seems to be doing just fine, thank you. The founder was awarded a Nobel Prize for the work he did with Grameen Bank. He calls the underlying premise, social entrepreneurship. It requires all businesses to include a non-profit division. The for-profit side can sell all they want, and make profits for shareholders, and the non-profit side works to make the products available to the poor and disadvantaged, giving access to all. Tom