Downvoted to -1 for not liking some faux-open-source stuff.

So much for the hacker spirit of "hacker" news!

Immoral is an extreme form of perverse and malevolent morality, or the lack of it.

Moral simply means "all the spectrum of things that are not immoral", or not immoral, which is a much larger category with a lot more nuances.

Immoral is also a subjective judgment, morality changes according to time, place, culture etc

Let's talk about ethics next time

So labeling something you don't like immoral is as dogmatic as labeling the abortion immoral just because 3 thousand years ago some guy wrote it in a book of fiction, while thinking that is not immoral means, in the majority of the cases, having no such strong opinion on other people's decisions, which we would consider the "obvious" choice not the dogmatic one.

This is arguing semantics, and we're somewhat straying away from the subject, but I'm not sure if that's actually the case.

At least most dictionaries would disagree with your definition, clearly associating moral with "right behavior".

"Moral" - in the discussed context - doesn't simply mean non-immoral. Neutral attitudes aren't moral, right attitudes count as moral.

what definition?

moral comes from Latin moralis, which translates to "manners" or "behavior"

in this context software cannot be immoral, only people can, things have no moralis.

In this context, again, considering it immoral can be a dogmatic position, NOT considering it immoral it's not

Nobody said that proprietary software is virtuous, but simply that it is not immoral.

On the other hand, it is perfectly possible (and happened) that people developing free software have little or no morality (see Hans Reiser and Reiserfs)

> Moral" - in the discussed context - doesn't simply mean non-immoral

The context is: is not considering VS Code immoral dogmatic?

The answer is no.

Being neutral about it is part of not considering it immoral.

Morality includes both good and bad.