> Bank uses free software on their system?
I suppose that would depend on the bank. It's the bank's affair.
If the bank's software is free, the bank enjoys freedom.
Otherwise, the nonfree software denies the bank freedom.
Either way, it has no effect on us. We are not running that software,
so it does not deny us our freedom.
I would advise any bank to insist on free software, but if it doesn't
listen, that is the bank's loss, not ours. I feel sorry for the bank
for this error, but that is not a reason to boycott it.
It is amusing that you talk of a bank as if it was a person. I don't know what it even means when you say that a bank may or may not enjoy freedom.
More seriously, it is peculiar that you do not see anything problematic in promoting businesses of entities who rely on non-free software for their business. Are you, in turn, not promoting non-free software then? A part of profit the bank makes by doing business with you is shared with companies making non-free software.
> Or are we to merely shift to services where nonfree software runs on
> somebody else's computer?
Who is morally responsible for running the nonfree software is the
most important question, but you dismiss that as an insignificant
I have done no such thing, and I don't see why you should ascribe indifference to moral issues to me. That said, I could argue quite the opposite: that by your argument, your moral responsibility seems to end at what software runs on your computer. There is no moral responsibility for anything else.
> Go to an internet kiosk and make the payment?
That is a fune way way. However, I usually mail a check instead. It
doesn't require me to run any nonfree software (it doesn't use
software at all), and I can do it from home.
I find this absurd. You are welcome to do what you like, and to believe that this is somehow morally superior.
I don't see this discussion leading to anything if it is only about personal preferences and views.