You are technically correct, and capitalism may be amoral, but people are moral beings, and using amoral systems does not excuse amoral (or immoral) behaviour.

You are technically correct, and capitalism may be amoral, but people are moral beings, and using amoral systems does not excuse amoral (or immoral) behaviour. Capitalism allows you to be an asshole, or worse; but it's a moral choice. Bankers cynically spending away people's savings, debt traders cynically betting people's mortgages, insurance companies cynically avoiding payouts because of technicalities, corporations cynically firing workers to optimize profits -- capitalism operates on a playing field where many morally questionable or indefensible actions are perfectly legal. (I don't know if what you are reacting against is Randian thinking; I'm not an expert on Rand, but if anything, Rand is on the capitalism side, and seems to assume that morality takes care of itself through some Smithian invisible hand combined with an irrational faith in all-powerful people doing the right thing. The OP does not seem like a classic "tech libertarian" to me. Rather, the notion that there must be a humanistic control mechanism to oppose capitalism's inherent unfairness is probably more correctly social liberalism.) My point: The author of Sublime Text has no legal obligation to support his customers, but there is certainly a moral obligation.