You're free to sell software at any cost the recipient is willing to pay, at least such that it squares with your concience. However, if you don't sell the source code with it, I consider that unethical.
Land is a finite resource with intrinsic value, not the same thing. So is the meal itself. Recipes are different.
We have social obligations. That's what being a society is.
Hmm, just to try and understand your view a little better, it sounds by that logic that toy makers should also provide technical schematics when they sell toys so that consumers could add or fix elements of what they bought?
No, not even close. It is 100% ethical to sell software but not the source to it. It isn't a social obligation of any kind to do so. You may choose to do so but you can't force that choice on others.
Not every ethical notion needs to be legislated. I don’t think anyone is suggesting everyone enforced to publish all source code, however, not releasing source code can be perceived as unethical...or shady AF if that makes more sense.
The fact is, it may protect against piracy but practically all consumer software nowadays is doing something on your device that you wouldn’t approve of. The only realistic way for a user to know how their resources are being used would be to look at the source code.
Land is a finite resource with intrinsic value, not the same thing. So is the meal itself. Recipes are different.
We have social obligations. That's what being a society is.