Well, not

> I've never understood/agreed with this part of RMS speech (closed source software being
imoral)

I think it goes something like this:

Humans like helping each other out with various problems. For example, if one person figures
out how to fix a problem with a particular tool he has, he can share that fix with everyone
else using that tool, and someone using a different tool can look at the fix, pull a useful
idea out of it, and enhance his own tool... Now this might be desirable for all kinds of
practical reasons, but it's also *morally* positive; answers are shared out of mutual respect,
a co-operative spirit, a desire to raise the bar for everyone. But even misanthropes see
virtue in self-sufficiency - the moral imperative to take responsibility for one's own
destiny, in this case by ensuring one can repair one's own equipment.

But non-free software prohibits these practices at their very source - by prohibiting people
from fixing their own, or their neighbours', problems. Therefore, it prevents people from
acting morally, both for themselves and towards each other - a property which makes it immoral
in itself, even if it had no other practical problems.

That's how I always understood the argument anyway. It's not a question of "if you use this
kind of software you're an evil person who makes baby Jesus cry". It's a question of "this
kind of software won't *let* you act morally with regard to it".