The Growing Threats to Software Freedom: A Call for Community Action

This is a long read - diving into the mechanisms that are undermining the Free Software movement and philosophy current days - and why it's important to gather and step up for these ideals.

In the early 2000s, the future of software freedom seemed bright. Governments worldwide were actively promoting Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), with initiatives like Germany's LiMux project moving entire cities to Linux, and Brazil mandating open source solutions in public administration. The European Union was discussing interoperability and open standards, while countless public institutions were exploring alternatives to proprietary software.

Two decades later, the landscape has shifted dramatically. The LiMux project has been rolled back, government mandates have been quietly replaced with non-binding recommendations, and even traditional bastions of software freedom face reduced funding and influence. This retreat comes at a critical moment when our dependence on software has never been greater, and the principles of software freedom have never been more important.

The Subtle Erosion of Software Freedom

The threats to software freedom today are more insidious than ever before. Rather than outright opposition, we face a gradual erosion through seemingly reasonable compromises and market-driven changes that slowly chip away at the foundations of software freedom.

Consider MongoDB's shift to the Server Side Public License (SSPL). On the surface, this move appeared to protect the company's interests against cloud providers who profit from running MongoDB as a service without contributing back to the project. However, the SSPL's complexity and unusual requirements have led many organizations to consider it incompatible with traditional open source principles. Similar issues arise with other "almost-free" licenses, like the Commons Clause or the GreyJay license, which add restrictions that undermine the clarity and certainty that made the GPL and other traditional FOSS licenses so powerful.

The impact extends beyond licensing. Take the case of AI and machine learning systems. While companies proudly announce "open source" AI models, the reality is far more complex. These models often require massive computational resources to train and deploy, making true freedom practically impossible for most users. When OpenAI released GPT-2, they called it "open," but the billions required to train similar models effectively restricted real freedom to a handful of wealthy corporations.

The Cloud Trap and Data Monetization

Perhaps the most significant shift has been the move toward cloud services and data monetization. Consider a simple task like collaborative document editing. Twenty years ago, you might have used OpenOffice or LibreOffice, running entirely on your own computer. Today, Google Docs offers a "free" alternative that's powerful and convenient – but at what cost?

The service is free in terms of money, but it requires surrendering control of your data and accepting constant surveillance of your work habits. Your documents, your editing patterns, and your collaboration networks all become data points for advertising algorithms. This model has become so prevalent that many users, especially younger ones, see it as entirely normal.

The implications run deeper than personal privacy. When services are "free" through data monetization, FOSS alternatives that respect user freedom must either find alternative funding models or struggle to compete. A self-hosted Nextcloud instance might offer similar features to Google Drive, but it requires infrastructure, maintenance, and often direct payment. This creates a perverse incentive where protecting your freedom actually costs more money than surrendering it.

The Market Concentration Crisis

This dynamic feeds into a broader problem of market concentration. Companies like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon have achieved such dominance that they can effectively set de facto standards for entire categories of software. This leads to what Cory Doctorow calls "enshittification" – a cycle where platforms first lure in users with good service, then gradually degrade that service to extract maximum profit once users are effectively locked in.

Consider Slack's evolution. Initially praised for its open API and integration capabilities, it has gradually restricted these features, pushing users toward paid tiers and proprietary integrations. The network effects and data lock-in make it difficult for users to switch to FOSS alternatives like Matrix or Mattermost, even when they would prefer to.

A similar pattern is now unfolding in the world of AI, where businesses are setting up services at low or no cost, while needing whole server farms to process all the requests. While these initial costs are carried by investment funds, rest assured that these investments will need to render profits. Once services permeate through our ecosystems, prices will have to rise to cover the cost of processing - and some additional margin of profit. Notice how both servers and knowledge are increasingly concentrated around again the same five major tech companies in the world. Having systems that are open, transparent and adaptable to run on smaller systems, will be essential if we don't want all power to again land in the same ten hands.

The Institutional Challenge

Meanwhile, traditional institutions supporting software freedom face their own challenges. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) and its European counterpart FSFE have seen reduced funding and influence. The recent controversies surrounding Richard Stallman highlight a crucial challenge: how to separate enduring principles from individual personalities.

While Stallman's personal actions and statements have drawn criticism, the four freedoms he articulated – to use, study, modify, and share software – remain as vital as ever. Yet the controversy has made it easier for critics to dismiss these principles by associating them with personal failings rather than engaging with the underlying ideas.

The Standards and Policy Battlefield

The battle for software freedom increasingly plays out in standards bodies and policy frameworks. While open standards are crucial for interoperability, the process of creating these standards has become increasingly dominated by large technology companies. Take the example of web standards: while technically open, implementing a modern web browser has become so complex that even Microsoft abandoned its own engine in favor of Google's Chromium, effectively reducing browser diversity and centralizing control.

The regulatory landscape presents similar challenges. The EU's Cyber Resilience Act (CRA), while well-intentioned in its aim to improve software security, could create significant burdens for FOSS projects. The requirements for documentation, security assessments, and ongoing maintenance could prove overwhelming for volunteer-driven projects that have historically been the backbone of the FOSS ecosystem.

The AI Challenge to Transparency

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning present perhaps the most profound challenge yet to software freedom principles. Traditional FOSS emphasized transparency and the ability to understand and modify code. But how do these principles apply to AI systems where the behavior emerges from training data rather than explicit programming?

When OpenAI releases a model under an "open" license, what does that really mean? The weights and architecture might be available, but without access to the training data and the massive computational resources needed for training, true freedom remains illusory. The situation becomes even more complex with systems like GitHub Copilot, trained on public code repositories without clear consideration of their licenses.

The Educational Divide

A particularly concerning trend is emerging in education. Universities increasingly partner with proprietary cloud providers, introducing students to development environments that are inextricably tied to specific vendors. Computer science education often focuses on using specific tools rather than understanding fundamental principles of software freedom and digital rights.

When students learn to develop primarily using AWS services or Google Cloud Platform, they're not just learning technical skills – they're being conditioned to accept a particular model of software development where dependency on proprietary cloud services is the norm. The idea of running your own servers or maintaining control of your computing environment becomes foreign, viewed as unnecessarily complex rather than fundamentally empowering.

The Role of Community Action

In the face of these challenges, the work of organizations like the Digital Freedom Foundation (DFF) becomes more crucial than ever. Through events like Software Freedom Day, Hardware Freedom Day, and Document Freedom Day, DFF creates opportunities for different communities to engage with software freedom principles in practical ways.

Consider a typical Software Freedom Day event in a public library. Visitors might learn how to install Linux on their old laptops, discovering that hardware they thought obsolete can find new life with free software. They might learn about privacy-respecting alternatives to common cloud services, or participate in workshops on digital rights and online privacy. These hands-on experiences make abstract principles concrete and accessible.

Universities present another crucial venue for action. When students organize Software Freedom Day events, they create spaces to question dominant narratives about software development and digital rights. They can demonstrate alternatives to proprietary cloud services, show how FOSS tools can meet real-world needs, and build communities of practice around software freedom principles.

Building Networks of Resistance

The power of these local events extends beyond their immediate impact. Each Software Freedom Day team becomes a node in a global network of advocates and practitioners. These networks can respond to policy proposals, share resources and knowledge, and support each other in promoting software freedom.

When the EU proposes regulations like the CRA, these networks can mobilize to explain the impact on FOSS projects and suggest alternatives. When schools consider adopting proprietary cloud services, local FOSS advocates can demonstrate viable alternatives and explain the importance of maintaining control over educational infrastructure.

The Path Forward

The challenges to software freedom are real and growing, but they are not insurmountable. Through coordinated community action, public education, and persistent advocacy, we can work to preserve and advance these essential principles. Key strategies include:

• Making software freedom relevant to non-technical audiences by focusing on practical benefits and real-world applications
• Building networks of advocates who can influence policy at local and national levels
• Supporting educational initiatives that teach fundamental principles alongside technical skills
• Creating sustainable funding models for FOSS development that don't compromise core principles

The Digital Freedom Foundation's role in coordinating these efforts becomes increasingly vital. By providing resources, support, and a framework for action, DFF helps local communities translate software freedom principles into practical action.

A Call to Action

The time for action is now. Whether you're a developer, educator, policy maker, or simply someone who cares about digital rights and freedoms, there are concrete steps you can take:

• Get involved with Software Freedom Day events in your community, or organize one if none exist
• Support organizations defending software freedom through donations or volunteer work (e.g. FSF)
• Advocate for FOSS solutions in your workplace or educational institution
• Engage with policy makers on digital rights issues
• Share knowledge and build awareness in your community
• Support the Digital Freedom Foundation to empower local teams and coordinate a global movement.

The future of software freedom depends on our collective ability to meet these challenges while building strong, sustainable communities committed to digital rights and freedoms. Through coordinated action and persistent advocacy, we can work to ensure that the principles of software freedom continue to shape our digital future.