All forms of software development are fine, as long as the developers manage to have some form of sustained earnings from it, which is not so easy as many think.
I really love first world problems.
pjmlp stated "All forms of software development are fine, as long as the developers manage to have some form of sustained earnings from it, which is not so easy as many think." .. in which, in context, he likely meant that those who are inclined to look askance at closed-source companies should realize that there is much sustained value to be derived from such activities. Our community tends to frown on people who advocate the Jim Gray closed-source perspective, so pjmlp was naturally inclined to be defensive.
icebraining was simply taking issue with the portion that reads "All forms of software development are fine, as long as the developers manage to have some form of sustained earnings from it" which, if taken literally, suggests that extreme cases like software that kills kittens is morally good as long as someone makes a buck from it. I am pretty sure that pjmlp did not mean it in exactly this way.
In many markets that require packaged software like the desktop, usually only closed source software offers a sustainable business.
In the end, if you are able to earn money with closed or open source software depends on the target market of your solution.
Let's change your argument:
Safe driving advocates should understand that safe driving only works with types of commuting paths are relatively short.
In many places where the commuting is rather long, usually only reckless driving offers a way to get to work.
In the end, if you are able to maintain a job by driving safely or recklessly depends on your commuting path.
Does this offer a valid argument for driving recklessly and putting other people in danger?
Of course, I know you find this ridiculous because you don't consider distributing closed source software to be wrong, therefore it's stupid to compare reckless driving to it. But if you're trying to appeal to the people who do find it wrong, that argument simply doesn't make sense.
It's not about being illogical. It's about attributing different values to different things. You may call it dogma if you want, but it's not different than any moral principle.
Maybe your morality is purely based on logic, and if so I'd be genuinely interested in knowing more about it. Or maybe you're amoral, I don't know. But most people have some core guidelines in which we base our decisions (and build logical moral codes upon) which can't be explained logically.
>It's not about being illogical. It's about attributing different values to different things.
No, it's about extremism. Dogma. Closed source is the ultimate evil and will destroy the world! It's not practical. Really, why would absolutely everything need to be open source? The percent of people who actually read the source or actually change something based on it being open source is line noise. Practically speaking, there's little difference in the freedom because it's not exercised in most cases. And in the cases it would be, access to the source code can be (and is, very often) bought.