A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of these freedoms. Otherwise, it is nonfree. While we can distinguish various nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of being free, we consider them all equally unethical.
For people who think that users deserve the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software they use, nonfree software is indeed unethical. Even more so when the software is used by the developers as an instrument of injust power.
It's a continuum. Respecting software freedom is the most ethical action, so
using proprietary terms is less ethical. The software may, depending on your
view, not be net unethical at that point. It's further unethical if they have
problematic terms in the EULA besides being proprietary in the first place.
Competing with free software and thus taking attention and therefore resources
away from the free software is negative ethically, in the same sense that
advertising bottled water is unethical even if it didn't have the environmental
problems that it has.
It's especially unethical if software spies on you and advertises at you or even
worse things.
Implying that non-free software is unethical isn't rude. Especially since I
didn't insist that this particular software is deeply unethical. I just
suggested that support for ethical software like GIMP is the right thing to
do and so supporting less ethical software is something I'm suggesting
avoiding.
Now, having learned from other comments about this particular case, I'll agree that as proprietary software goes, Paint.net sounds unusually good in the ethics realm, just not quite on par with GIMP, but I'd say net ethical after all.
Stallman founded the whole free software movement on the theory that asking a user to execute code without the ability to investigate/modify/share it is unethical. Read any of his essays (and you definitely should if you haven't) and it's clear that his motive is moral/ethical. This sentiment is frequently shared among open-source developers.
Comments
Implying that non-free software is unethical? That's a rather rude thing to say.
From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html:
For people who think that users deserve the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software they use, nonfree software is indeed unethical. Even more so when the software is used by the developers as an instrument of injust power.
It's a continuum. Respecting software freedom is the most ethical action, so using proprietary terms is less ethical. The software may, depending on your view, not be net unethical at that point. It's further unethical if they have problematic terms in the EULA besides being proprietary in the first place. Competing with free software and thus taking attention and therefore resources away from the free software is negative ethically, in the same sense that advertising bottled water is unethical even if it didn't have the environmental problems that it has. It's especially unethical if software spies on you and advertises at you or even worse things.
Implying that non-free software is unethical isn't rude. Especially since I didn't insist that this particular software is deeply unethical. I just suggested that support for ethical software like GIMP is the right thing to do and so supporting less ethical software is something I'm suggesting avoiding.
Now, having learned from other comments about this particular case, I'll agree that as proprietary software goes, Paint.net sounds unusually good in the ethics realm, just not quite on par with GIMP, but I'd say net ethical after all.
Stallman founded the whole free software movement on the theory that asking a user to execute code without the ability to investigate/modify/share it is unethical. Read any of his essays (and you definitely should if you haven't) and it's clear that his motive is moral/ethical. This sentiment is frequently shared among open-source developers.
> Implying that non-free software is unethical?
Absolutely. It is.
There may be few other options in the current global economic system, but it does not make it any more ethical.