You’ve read the GPL’s preamble, you can name the Four Freedoms, and you do your best to keep proprietary bits off our computers. But what’s the future of free software in the era of Flickr, Google Apps, and Facebook?

What it means to be free

The term free software was defined by Richard Stallman. We know Stallman as the founder of the GNU Project, the author of the General Public License, and founder of the Free Software Foundation. Stallman defined free software this way: not by the price of the software, but by the freedoms it accords to its users.

Specifically, users of free software are free to:

• Use the software for any purpose
• Study how the program works
• Change the software, modifying the source code to meet the user’s needs
• Redistribute the software, with or without modifications—to share the software.

Free software is also known as open source. Access to the source code of a program is a precondition of the aforementioned freedoms—specifically, the freedoms to study the program and to modify it.

So what are the characteristics of free software? Here are some of the more familiar claims:

• Free software is technically better: it’s better code.
• Free software lowers production costs by reducing unnecessary duplication of effort.
• Free software is more secure, because with many eyes, all bugs are shallow.
• Free software is more customizable, because every user has the tools to adapt the program to their needs.
• Because free software is produced in the open, where everyone is free to share and build upon the best work, competition is fierce and switching costs are low.

By now, these facets of free software are familiar enough to sound cliché. Let’s dig a bit deeper: what else does it mean to be free?

You’re in control

Digital restrictions are incompatible with free software. Effective DRM depends on preventing the user from circumventing restrictions; you can’t do that when everyone can see the code.

In addition, the ways that free programs store and exchange data are open. As with DRM, the developer can’t hide anything from the user, because she has the source code. So, by its very nature, free software uses open formats and open protocols. (Of course, published specs make interoperability easier, but that’s another story. In the worst case scenario, a developer wanting to interoperate has to dig through confusing code; that’s still better than having reverse-engineering as the only recourse.)

This is the social importance of free software

The picture I’m painting is a world where users have control of the software they use and the data they create. This is what’s attractive about free software—the principles beyond mere pragmatism.

Consider the crucial role of software and data in the modern world:

• To economic vitality and innovation;
• To formal education as well as lifelong learning;
• To information about our communities—about our government, environment, and schools;
• To culture and creativity;
• And to our personal and social lives—as an extension of our selves, and a tool to connect with those around us.

Seen this way, what user wouldn’t want to have ultimate control of the device they use for all these deeply important purposes; and what user wouldn’t want control of the data they create with it? This, beyond any questions of technical merit or fiscal penny-pinching, is the social importance of free software.

Your data, their machine

Most users of GNU/Linux and free software already understand this—at least in a vague, gut sense. But our understanding (if not the principle) is based on an unstated assumption. The assumption is this: We are ultimately talking about our devices, right?