fanatic who sees everything from the exclusive viewpoint of property rights, thankfully I grew out of that, but can't we just all agree that property rights are an important part of freedom and any morality that enforces sharing should rather make a strong case for it, that is should be an exception, not a rule? Plus if it is a moral question where to draw the line -- only shrinkwrap, or also SaaS, or even every in-house used software contain a whole lot of business secrets, even when it has some very narrow interface with customers? At the end of the day if it was a moral requirement to share the source of every software it would mean there is a moral requirement to share every kind of knowledge and how-to -- and does anyone really seriously say that? Your previous essay, on harm, categorised well why "closed source" is "evil", it is harmful. Now, that harm might be acceptable in some cases (lesser evil) but, well. I also have to question how well the whole free software/open source software movement(s) would have got without the "off topic" message of ethics. (I would be interested in a debate between people who were there. I'm far too young.) I guess you think it would have gone further and faster? (And @Vrata, seriously? India open and diverse? What about castes, the whole Pakistan mess (from before partition until now), continue mistreatment of Muslims, continued mistreatment of "blasphemers", government censorship, etc. etc.?) Why