> Assuming the terms and prices are fair and no "bad practices" [...] no excessive EULA/DRM

I think there's an argument to be made that the work that compilers perform might as well be DRM. Granted, the obfuscating effect of source-to-binary translation is in most cases incidental to the compiler's main purpose, but it's an effect that can be felt nonetheless.

Why would a user care about the source code?

It is like people going to the cinema expecting to be given all the details, including technical documents and whatnot about how the movie was made.

> Why would a user care about the source code?

If there's a bug, the user can fix it only if the source code is available.

> It is like people going to the cinema expecting to be given all the details, including technical documents and whatnot about how the movie was made.

Well, movies do include credits, detailing who did what. From there, you could research what the "what" is and know more or less how the movie was made.

Disclaimer: I have no care either way between OSS or commercial software, beyond liking to contribute and support OSS projects, and working on proprietary applications (and being generally ok with it). So I'm replying not with an intent to proselytize; just thought I could address your points.

Another HNer participating in one of the site's favorite pastimes: moving the goalposts. Hooray.

> Assuming the terms and prices are fair and no "bad practices" are going on (no excessive EULA/DRM, no ads, no enforced subscriptions, no online requirement, etc.), how is that immoral?

The point is that proprietary software is inherently that kind of bad practice - it means users can't fix bugs they encounter, or can't share their bugfixes. This is particularly vexing when the vendor also disclaims all warranties on the software, which is usual practice - reserving the right to sell something broken and unfixable.

Compare e.g. car right-to-repair laws that require manufacturers to make their repair manuals available.

Thanks for calling my way of living immoral and then not having the decency to answer my question to you about how do it in a way that would mean I could ensure I get paid for coding and not get stolen from.

I mean, I work on custom software that my clients use in-house; my clients always get full source code and I bill them for my time. But I doubt that's particularly relevant to your situation.

I don't know what would work for you. If you're doing in-person support for your users, that may well be a lot more valuable than the software itself. Maybe that's a viable business, or maybe it isn't. Again, the world doesn't owe you a business model. If you're selling shrink-wrapped software then my honest opinion is that that business is dying (with or without the open-source movement) and it's better to get out of it.

Software Freedom Conservancy folks have good explanations for this, check their video presentations for arguments. Tl;dr a pacemaker runs a software that could be fixed with an update, but you don't have the rights to do this, no one has, since the company is already out of business, so the patient is screwed. That's a drastic example but clearly shows why the proprietary software is immoral.

I'd have no problems providing source code if I thought the people I was dealing with would behave in a moral manner with it, to use your term.

No, it does not show anything. You are picking an extreme example in a heavily regulated field and trying to prove a general point with it. It is the knife fallacy again.

If pacemakers really need software updates, then regulate that companies are required to provide the updates or release the code if unable to do so for any reason.