Introduction

Nonfree software is everywhere. And it really shows. At this point in time, I’d argue that there is more nonfree software in the wild than there is free software. This raises some important questions. First of all, why all the fuss about it? Shouldn’t we just let nonfree software exist? And secondly, why advocate for free software, when the most popular products based on proprietary licenses make up the bulk of the so-called industry standards? In this article, we will go through the pitfalls of nonfree software, and why it is bad for you, the end user.

What is Nonfree Software?

Well, there are many different definitions of what you could consider nonfree software. But for simplicity’s sake we’ll go by the definition that Richard Stallman set for nonfree software. A piece of software is to be considered nonfree when it doesn’t respect all four fundamental freedoms, meaning that if at least one freedom is disregarded, the software cannot be called free. These four essential freedoms are:

This proprietary software is typically closed source, meaning the user cannot view the source code and only receives a pre-compiled binary, with the sources themselves only being visible to those considered “authorized”.

Why It is Harmful

This in turn brings along many concepts that harm users and developers alike. Examples include “security through obscurity”, forced updates, potential backdoors that allows certain people covert access to your system, pre-installed bloatware, and spyware that collects your data, among others. These ideas not only promote disinterest in the inner workings of your system, but also blatant ignorance of what these companies are doing in the background. At this point, thanks to very creative marketing schemes, people unironically use the word “magic” to describe technology. This kind of language disregards all the hard work that has been invested into bringing computing to the level at which it is today. Also, nonfree software harms its users by not respecting their freedoms, therefore taking ownership of the users’ computers, in the case of operating systems, and the users’ data when we include desktop and web programs.

Conclusion

As it stands right now, we’re at a delicate place, where nonfree software providers and free software activists stand face to face, about to fight the battle of a lifetime. This battle will not be fought with weapons, and it won’t consist of violence in its traditional sense. But it will be important. And it will decide the future of computing as we know it.