The Curl author made the choice to give away his project for free, no one owes him money. So it is nice to see a company giving back, because they did not have to.
"The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it"
https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...
We’re all horrible for not donating. According to that interpretation
The problem starts when you actually donate. Now you are in the spotlight, and people are going to judge you publicly for not donating enough, or donating to this instead of that, or maybe just for the fact that you are trying to solve problems by donating instead of promoting a worldwide proletarian revolution. Either way, you are the bad guy now.
(The "Copenhagen interpretation of ethics" is supposed to highlight a failure in our ethical reasoning, but one that most people make completely naturally.)
However, I agree with the fact that it's nice that Bloomberg gives back and it may encourage people in other orgs to push their org to do the same.
Technically true, yet in some cases I'm reminded of folks playing music for tips in public. No one enjoying the music owes the musician, though some of them could record / stream it (perhaps supplemented with commentary) for a profit. Would it be ethical for them to contribute nothing or only pennies?
According to the sibling reply, if I gave the musician a penny, that would still be 167x more than he would get if I streamed his music.
You're missing a zero there, it's more like $0.006 per stream
https://edm.com/industry/how-much-each-streaming-platform-pa...