> 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.
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.