<div dir="ltr">Hey Boris,<div><br></div><div>To me this point of view also seems anti-pirate in a certain sense. Think about what do we stand for fundamentaly. A wording may be different, but it is basically that people's free access to information (as long as it is not for commercial purposes) is their fundamental right. And restricting this access is unethical.</div>
<div>For example, restricting people's access to a book is unethical. So why restricting people's access to a source code is fine with you? It is just another kind of information. And AFAIK, PPG treats software in the same way as all the other creations - so why don't you demand the same treatment for it as for the others? </div>
<div>You say that an "end-user" doesn't need a source code. But that actually means that "majority of end-users" don't need a source code: you don't, and I don't. But some end-users might decide that they want to modify a program. So we're just talking about majority. And of course, if you talk about any particular book, majority of people will not need to read it - relatively few will. But we still demand that the access to it should be there - just in case this minority needs it. It's unethical otherwise. The same way with software - just in case a minority needs it, access to a code should be there. It's unethical otherwise.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I intentially omit all the other practical and philosophical issues here, just sticking to my understanding of the PP point of view.</div></div>