On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Tom Poe wrote: > 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 don't know. Why isn't it just stupid instead of unethical? If something is unethical within some philosophical system, you should be able to show the logical steps from premises to conclusions. > 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. That may be one area for ethical analysis, but the question we are now considering (as suggested by the subject line and earlier questions) is whether it proprietary software is immoral. That software might have nothing to do with telecommunications. > 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. Is that related to proprietary v. free software in some way? Mike