
Proprietary Software Is Often Malware - aamederen
https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/
======
crankylinuxuser
I also am reminded about FTDI's (edit: Windows Update - pushed ) malicious
driver/firmware update that bricked the VID/PID of what the driver detected as
"counterfeit" FTDI serial to usb transceivers. The resulting change made was
to set the VID=0000, PID=0000 thus unbinding the associated drivers from being
able to identify the hardware.

Torvalds, within a few days, allowed a kernel patch of usbserial.ko to allow
usage from 0000:0000 to rewrite the firmware to fix the devices.

This was an example of a chip company destroying hardware arbitrarily, thus
showing another treacherous computing in proprietary software.

------
archgrove
Well sure. If you basically redefine Malware to be "Anything other than GPL
software", then you're going to consider most software malware. That doesn't
mean it's the definition of Malware that most (i.e. all) other people will
use, and it doesn't really advance the discussion. It mostly continues to make
GNU look like fringe lunatics.

Moreover, whilst I don't really object to hyperbole in pursuit of a crusade, I
don't greatly appreciate this type of cross-talk. It's hard enough to keep
family members free of actual malware without confusing them with comments
like "iOS itself is malware".

~~~
asfglionio
GNU seems to define anything that works against the interests of the user as
malware. That's a broad but by no means crazy definition, and it it
interesting that a lot of "legitimate" proprietary software is malware by that
definition.

And, in this case, they seem to be using an even narrower definition than
that. The things listed on this page are considerably worse than just using
the wrong license.

------
thosakwe
I think it's very important to note the source of this document, as well as
any biases that source may have.

For example, this piece was written by GNU, which is by and large a proponent
of free software.

~~~
jacob019
I contribute to the FSF and agree with the sentiment, but the text has a very
opinionated tone and I would prefer to see the author's name and title with
the text.

~~~
classichasclass
I'm gonna guess rms.

I think proprietary software certainly has much potential for harm,
particularly when it's unmaintained or defective by design, but that's kind of
a jump to get to outright malicious. I think most people would define malware
in that sense.

~~~
ISL
My general impression is that RMS' definition of malware is anything that is
bad, by any measure, for the user.

Mal, bad, in the latin.

------
SketchySeaBeast
"A proprietary program puts its developer or owner in a position of power over
its users. This power is in itself an injustice."

This seems to be slightly ideologically loaded.

Absolutely, there's some shady stuff going on in a lot of places, and they do
post some good examples, but I'm not sure that their argument for free
software is supported by their evidence.

I'm not sure what the alternative is - 100% free, non-monetized software? Is
every piece of software to be developed gratis, and for every developer to
rely on the generosity of strangers to make a living?

~~~
crankylinuxuser
>>"A proprietary program puts its developer or owner in a position of power
over its users. This power is in itself an injustice."

>This seems to be slightly ideologically loaded.

It is, until it happens to you. Then the recourse is HN/Twitter/Reddit. If you
let yourself have your data exfiltrated, then your final answer is primarily
bad PR and/or begging.

One example that sticks out in my mind is the Firebase debacle as
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14356409](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14356409)
where costs went from $25/mo to $1700/mo . Because of the extraordinary bad
reporting across tech media, their C*O positions responded in kind. This could
have ended in a multitude of much worse outcomes, since this is software as a
service (aka: data ransom)

[https://startupsventurecapital.com/firebase-costs-
increased-...](https://startupsventurecapital.com/firebase-costs-increased-
by-7-000-81dc0a27271d)

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
> software as a service (aka: data ransom)

Isn't it understood that that's what that potentially could be? I have my
photos in the Google Cloud knowing that they'll stay there only as long as I
can pay for the service. I trust they won't raise their prices like that, but
I have no control over it, and if they do, yeah, that's something unethical
going on. What is the alternative to SaaS though? SaaS is not only the
software, it's also the cloud, and I have a real hard time arguing that
charging someone to use the hardware is some sort of physical malware.

------
ppeetteerr
The entire argument rests on the understanding of malware ("Malware has a
malicious intent, acting against the interest of the computer user" \-
Wikipedia). Most of the arguments against Microsoft, Apple, etc. point to
features of the software that make certain processes possible (e.g. control
over an app after it has been installed)

------
pitaj
How often?

------
kruhft
In what way? Format lock in?

~~~
ISL
TFA is a list of examples.

GNU/FSF has a perhaps broader-than-average definition of malware, but the
lists are thought-provoking to peruse.

