[minerva23]

> Something doesn't become more ethical just because it's described as an act of protest.

Agreed, but fighting back is often seen as ethical when unwarranted aggression is not.

In the case of this “protestware”, they’re both fighting back against unwarranted unjustifiable war AND doing no direct harm. They’re free to restrict who or where their software may run. They’re also free to include a boobytrap for anyone who doesn’t respect the license/restriction.

[Aspie96]

What?

That malware was directed to anyone with a Russian IP. The license was an open source license.

[minerva23]

The license change was implied by the boobytrap. Are you saying they didn’t have the right to change the license?

[Aspie96]

I'm saying malware isn't the same as a license change.

If we consider malware to be simply a form of licensing, than all malware is allowed, in every place. If malware hits you, it means you shouldn't have been using the software.