[unfasten]

You could buy a second copy of the software for the child. You saw enough value in it to consider letting them use it and you saw enough value to buy it for yourself. Either you consider the asking price fair for what it delivers or you don't. If you don't think it's a fair price then you can either write something yourself for them or spend your own time helping them learn.

There's no dilemma preventing you from helping the child.

[belorn]

So someone should go to university and study to become a programmer, and in several years into the future when the child has grown up, you might be able to reproduce the program? Could you provide a more straw'ish argument?

It is possible that you can spend money to buy a new copy, in the same way that the cab driver could "pay" his employer the drive the child home. However, anyone who sees the child could also spend the money for the cab. Is the argument here that they are all equally moral bankrupt when they child end up walking all those miles home? Does it matter that the cab driver was driving in that direction anyway?

Many people around the world can say that they are helping children to become the best they can be. Someone who refuse sharing can not. Which one are you?

[teddyh]

> You could buy a second copy of the software for the child.

This is a “let them eat cake” response. All problems could be solved if one assumes endless resources.

Also, you are assuming the software is still for sale. Perhaps it never was on sale; perhaps it’s a student-only edition provided by an institution. The point is: There are two choices: Obey the restriction the owner has decided and deny your help, or help the child and break your promise to obey the restrictions.