Why Free Software Matters

When most people hear “free software,” they think of downloads that don’t cost money. Or they think of hobbyist programmers sharing code out of goodwill. This misses the point entirely. Free software - properly understood - is one of the most important emancipatory projects of the digital age.

Let me start from first principles.

We Live in Code

Every aspect of modern life is mediated by software. The alarm that wakes you, the phone that connects you to others, the systems that manage your healthcare, the infrastructure that processes your banking, the platforms where you express yourself - all of it runs on code.

This isn’t optional. You can’t meaningfully opt out of software-mediated life without abandoning participation in contemporary society. Try to get a job, access government services, communicate with family, or organise politically without using software. You can’t. Not in 2025.

Software is infrastructure - as fundamental to modern life as roads, electricity, or water. But unlike those traditional infrastructures, which are at least nominally subject to public oversight and regulation, software is largely private, opaque, and controlled by corporations accountable primarily to shareholders.

The Problem of Control

Here’s the fundamental issue: when you don’t control the software you depend on, someone else does.

Think about what that means practically. When you use proprietary software - which is most software most people encounter - you’re operating machinery you’re not allowed to understand, modify, or share.

You can’t examine how it works. You can’t verify that it does what it claims. You can’t fix problems you encounter. You can’t adapt it to your needs. You can’t share improvements with others. You can’t remove features you find harmful. You must accept the software exactly as provided, on whatever terms the vendor chooses, subject to changes they can impose unilaterally.

This is a position of profound dependency. You’re trusting - and you have no choice but to trust - that the software acts in your interest rather than against it.

How’s that working out?

Your phone tracks your location and sells the data. Your TV monitors what you watch. Your car reports your driving habits to insurance companies. Your apps harvest your contacts and messages. Your devices contain backdoors for law enforcement. Your software phones home with everything you do, justified as “telemetry” or “improving the user experience.”

The companies that control this software can and do:

• Change terms of service to extract more data
• Remove features you depend on
• Introduce advertising into previously ad-free products
• Degrade performance to push you toward upgrades
• Deny you access to your own data
• Shut down services you rely on
• Lock you into ecosystems that make leaving expensive

You have no recourse because you have no control. You’re not the user of this software - you’re its subject.

Freedom as First Principle

This is where free software becomes politically important, not just technically interesting.

Free software is defined by four essential freedoms:¹

0. The freedom to run the programme as you wish, for any purpose
1. The freedom to study how the programme works, and change it to make it do what you wish
2. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others
3. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others

These aren’t arbitrary technical preferences. They’re deliberate political choices about power and autonomy.

Notice what these freedoms enable:

• Freedom 0: You control when and how you use the software, not the vendor
• Freedom 1: You can understand what the software actually does - no hidden behaviour, no surveillance you didn’t consent to
• Freedom 2: You can help others by sharing tools, rather than everyone being dependent on a single vendor
• Freedom 3: The community can collectively improve software and everyone benefits

Together, these freedoms transform software from a tool of control into a tool of liberation.

The Emancipatory Potential

Free software enables forms of power that proprietary software structurally prevents.

It enables collective self-determination. When communities control their software infrastructure, they can make collective decisions about how it works. Schools can modify educational software to match their pedagogical approach. Healthcare systems can adapt medical records software to their workflows. Local governments can customise administrative systems to their residents’ needs. This is impossible with proprietary software, where you must accept the vendor’s vision or find a different vendor (who will also impose their vision).

It enables democratic accountability. With free software, anyone can audit the code. Security researchers can find vulnerabilities. Privacy advocates can verify there’s no hidden data collection. Journalists can investigate claims about algorithmic bias. The software is subject to public scrutiny in ways that proprietary code never can be. When Facebook’s algorithm amplifies extremism or Google’s search rankings bury critical coverage, we can’t examine the code - we’re dependent on what the companies choose to reveal. Free software makes the machinery of power visible and therefore contestable.

It enables genuine ownership. Free software respects your right to control your computing. You own your device? Then you should control what it does. You generated the data? Then you should control where it goes. You depend on the tool? Then you should be able to maintain it yourself or hire someone who can, rather than being captive to a single vendor’s roadmap and pricing. This is basic autonomy - the ability to use tools on your terms rather than someone else’s.

It enables mutual aid and collective knowledge. When you solve a problem with free software, you can share that solution with everyone facing the same problem. Knowledge accumulates in the commons rather than being locked behind corporate walls. A clinic in Wales can benefit from improvements made by a hospital in Kerala. A small business in Cardiff can use tools developed by a co-op in Barcelona. This is radically different from proprietary software, where every organisation must separately licence the same solutions, often paying repeatedly for the same work.

It resists enclosure. The history of capitalism is substantially a history of enclosure - taking what was common and making it private property. Free software resists this process. Code licenced under free software licences can’t be enclosed. A corporation can’t take free software, lock it up, and charge rent for access. They can use it, even commercially, but the freedoms must remain. This makes free software a rare example of a commons that can’t be privatised - a collective resource that remains collectively controlled.

The Counterarguments

There are standard objections to free software. Let me address them.

“But proprietary software is more polished/easier to use.” Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But this isn’t an inherent property of proprietary software - it’s a property of investment. Proprietary software often has more resources because it has a profit motive driving development. But free software can be excellent when it has adequate resources - Firefox, Linux, LibreOffice, Blender. The real question is: should software quality depend on whether it’s profitable to surveil and control you? Or should we invest public resources in excellent free software that serves the public interest?

“But how will developers earn a living?” Many ways. Service and support contracts. Custom development. Hosting and integration. Training and consulting. Public funding - governments could fund free software development as public infrastructure, which it is. The question isn’t whether developers can make a living with free software (they demonstrably can), it’s whether we want a software industry based primarily on rent-seeking and control rather than providing genuine value.

“But regular people don’t care about this.” Regular people care about being tracked, about losing access to their data, about software that degrades over time, about being locked into expensive ecosystems they can’t leave. They don’t necessarily connect these problems to software freedom, but that’s because the connection isn’t visible - proprietary software is presented as normal and inevitable. People don’t miss freedoms they don’t know they’re entitled to. That doesn’t mean the freedoms don’t matter.

“But this is unrealistic/idealistic.” The entire internet runs on free software. The web server you’re using to read this? Probably Apache or Nginx - free software. The operating system running that server? Probably Linux - free software. The protocols that enable the internet itself? Developed collaboratively, freely available. Android, the world’s most popular mobile OS? Built on Linux. The most popular database systems? Free software. The toolchains that build most modern software? Free software. Calling this unrealistic ignores that free software already built the infrastructure of the digital world.

What This Means Practically

So what does it mean to care about free software?

Use free software where you can. Firefox instead of Chrome. LibreOffice instead of Microsoft Office. Linux instead of Windows or macOS, if you’re able. Signal instead of WhatsApp. You won’t be able to switch everything immediately, and that’s fine - proprietary software has network effects that make switching hard. But where you can choose, choose freedom.

Support free software development. Donate to projects you depend on. If you have resources, fund free software infrastructure. If you’re in government or a large organisation, prioritise free software in procurement. Make it clear there’s support for alternatives to corporate control.

Demand free software in public institutions. Schools should use free software - we shouldn’t be training children to be dependent on proprietary vendors. Governments should use free software - public infrastructure should be publicly controlled. Healthcare systems should use free software - your medical data is too important to trust to opaque corporate systems.

Understand it as a political project. Free software isn’t just about technical preferences or cost savings. It’s about who controls the digital infrastructure of our lives. It’s about whether computing serves human freedom or corporate profit. It’s about creating commons in a world of enclosure.

Why This Matters Now

We’re at a critical juncture. AI is being presented as the next inevitable transformation - and it’s being built almost entirely on proprietary foundations by a handful of massive corporations. The models are closed. The training data is taken without consent. The infrastructure is designed to centralise control.

This doesn’t have to be how it works. AI could be built on free software principles - open models, transparent training, auditable behaviour, collective governance. But that requires treating AI development as a political choice, not a technical inevitability.

The same is true for every domain where software is expanding its reach - healthcare, education, government services, political organising, creative work. Each time we accept proprietary solutions, we’re ceding control. Each time we choose or demand free software, we’re building infrastructure for autonomy.

Free software matters because freedom matters. The freedom to understand the tools you depend on. The freedom to control your computing rather than being controlled by it. The freedom to share knowledge and improvements. The freedom to participate in collective self-determination rather than being subjected to corporate power.

Software is infrastructure. Infrastructure is political. The question is whether we want digital infrastructure that serves the public or that extracts from it.

Free software is how we build the former. That’s why it matters.