> > Bank uses free software on their system? > > I suppose that would depend on the bank. It's the bank's affair. > If the bank's software is free, the bank enjoys freedom. > Otherwise, the nonfree software denies the bank freedom. > > Either way, it has no effect on us. We are not running that software, > so it does not deny us our freedom. > > I would advise any bank to insist on free software, but if it doesn't > listen, that is the bank's loss, not ours. I feel sorry for the bank > for this error, but that is not a reason to boycott it. > > It is amusing that you talk of a bank as if it was a person. I don't know what it even means when you say that a bank may or may not enjoy freedom.
More seriously, it is peculiar that you do not see anything problematic in promoting businesses of entities who rely on non-free software for their business. Are you, in turn, not promoting non-free software then? A part of profit the bank makes by doing business with you is shared with companies making non-free software. > > Or are we to merely shift to services where nonfree software runs on > > somebody else's computer? > > Who is morally responsible for running the nonfree software is the > most important question, but you dismiss that as an insignificant > detail. > I have done no such thing, and I don't see why you should ascribe indifference to moral issues to me. That said, I could argue quite the opposite: that by your argument, your moral responsibility seems to end at what software runs on your computer. There is no moral responsibility for anything else. > > Go to an internet kiosk and make the payment? > > That is a fune way way. However, I usually mail a check instead. It > doesn't require me to run any nonfree software (it doesn't use > software at all), and I can do it from home. > I find this absurd. You are welcome to do what you like, and to believe that this is somehow morally superior. I don't see this discussion leading to anything if it is only about personal preferences and views. V.
