It's completely fair, and not just Photoshop. It's the difference between paying programmers via a revenue stream to make polished software and not paying them.

It's completely fair, and not just Photoshop. It's the difference between paying programmers via a revenue stream to make polished software and not paying them. One makes better products. >The key difference is Photoshop has continuously improved, in part due to competitive pressure from tools like gimp If the pressure were from Gimp, they would be so far ahead, since it wouldn't be needed. Gimp is no where near Photoshop in features, usability, or pure technological prowess. Same for most any professional task. Open source CAD is so far behind commercial offerings it's comic. Paying developers via a revenue stream beats hobby code.