Hi interesting topic I have to say, I wil try getting over what I think about that.
I actualy think that the basis on which software is distributed these days is perfectly fine. I am not sure how companies should get money to produce new software if the model is changed.
One thing that might work is that there is a core tool of the program which everyone has to buy, but everyone can change and share different little enhancements for this core component so that everybody can use, just like linux or nvda for exampkle, I hope you get what I mean.

Yeah, ironcross pretty much summed it up.  There is no clear distinction between what makes something moral or ethical in such situations, save labeling something as legal or illegal when it is determined by legislation as such.  Suppose we take the topic and turn it into a discussion concerning music, which is something I work with.  Is a song worth 1 dollar and 99 cents if you only listen to it once or, if you buy it and never listen to it at all?  if you end up putting it on repeat and listen to it a thousand times is it still worth the same price?  Is it ideal to want to offer the song and any subsequent songs or albums to everyone at the same price if the only thing they want to do is listen and not distribute or stream the content or make it available by any means? Is it ideal to expect everyone to want to buy it at that price?  If we factor out the middleman in the equation, in this case, the record label, should the songs and albums in question still be worth the same price given that the artists will make more?

And the list of questions goes on and on, perpetuating the conflict.  One camp validly argues that music is not readily and quickly available in their country or countries at reasonable prices; sometimes not at all.  This camp turns around and pirates the music which is, by contrast and in unfairness being made available elsewhere because they truly want to listen to it, indirectly promoting it as a result since it is receiving more attention do to said piracy, which seems like a win win situation for the artists.  Another camp argues that this is no one's fault, that the problem lies in poor promotion and overseas legalities and whatnot.  This being the case, it is wrong to want a copy of the material.  Still another camp can validly claim that sharing music with one's friends over the internet is no worse than having them all over at your house listening on your stereo system, the key difference being that they can listen to a song they particularly like whenever without having to wait on you to flip a switch or push a button, a notion that has somewhat been tossed around at netflix who recently endorsed sharing your account with family and friends given the likelyhood that others become addicted to the content and wish to pay for it in future.
Soon enough all of these questions, suggestions, arguments and oppinions will become synonymous with every day life as multi billion dollar corporations struggle to acquire patents to claim ownership over anything and everything they can, from the materials and gestures that make and power your smart devices to DNA, to water, as Nestlé has tried to do recently.  Who has access and who should have access?  Since you can't fault the producer for wanting to make a proffit, and you can't fault the consumer for being drawn to those things that are proffitable, it's a debate you'll never win.

I don't know if I would have picked the word manufacture to describe what your friend was talking about, but if I understood the core component of her argument correctly, she wanted to make copies of the software that she purchased for personal use only. if that's right, I can agree to a point. In some places, even taking a CD and putting it onto your computer to listen to it is technically illegal. This is just stupid, in my opinion, because you're not harming anyone, you're just ensuring that you don't lose the music that you paid for with your own money. What does it matter what medium you've purchased it in? If you have to go out and purchase it again, who's actually profitting? I understand that with software, it's somewhat different, but as Nocturnus said, it's a really complex topic with so many angles to consider that it's hard to even know where to begin to dissect it.