I have one question: is it right to destroy a whole culture just to be the good guy afterwards?
The free software culture slowly recovers. But we are still far away from the good old and worthy traditions for commercial software developers.
It's the chaotic good versus lawful good argument. If the end result is peace and prosperity for all people in equal ways, then why not?
What's the saying about omelettes and eggs?
There are better ways to achieve a better living for everyone. No one needs to suffer or to die for that. The path is important.
We get it. Bill Gates made some reprehensible business decisions, in his time, that hurt people. He also made some good ones, and created vast amounts of wealth for many, many people. Microsoft continues to do so. I'd argue it nets out. Now, in the twilight of his life, he's spending his time and wealth helping society.
He didn't destroy the software world, or its "culture". What is it you do that allows you to throw so many stones?
I don't throw stones because of the mistakes someone made. I throw stones because of the lack of will or understanding why to fix the own mistake when he is capable of it.
"Gates took wealth from the many, many people and gave it to the few."
Those two sentences do not mean the same thing.
Your argument, when you boil it down, is that Bill Gates kept wealth and power for himself and his company, instead of allowing others to have it.
That's called capitalism, I think. I do good, I get money, I don't have to share it if I don't want to.
In capitalism, its considered fair to hurt people within legislation, just to make oneself rich. It is argued as the market and "the better shall win", but we are far away from sane market mechanics. More often people suffer than profit from it. The overall goal is to make everyone happy. But this can't be achieved by our capitalism.
Its another topic in how far down-votes are a good idea. Somehow, its a populist regulation of communicating non-conform thoughts.