> No, it's exactly the opposite. I'm saying: there's free software and proprietary software. Some people select free. Other, for whatever reason, select proprie

> No, it's exactly the opposite. I'm saying: there's free software and proprietary software. Some people select free. Other, for whatever reason, select proprietary. It's cool, both sides make sense. What's wrong with that? Nothing is wrong with the fact that humans can choose to use proprietary software. I think we have repeated this argument several times already. What is wrong is proprietary software itself. > That's exactly why I pointed out the dogmatic approach to "Proprietary software is immoral in general", especially the "in general". What I'd find okay to be immoral, is forcing people onto proprietary software. But as long as people have the choice? Let them be. Proprietary software is immoral, because it takes away user's freedom. Whether or not it is forced upon is not relevant for its immorality, because once a person starts using proprietary software, they lose control over their computing. That's what makes it immoral. What happens before and after that is completely irrelevant to the argument. Just as selling addictive drugs like heroin is immoral, because it enslaves people, through psychological/physical dependency. Of course, people should have the choice to put whatever they want into their own bodies. But that does not make heroin dealers any less immoral - their profit is derived directly from their users' enslavement. Whether people should have freedom to enslave themselves in general is a completely different discussion that has nothing to do with software.