Free software is a fundamental freedom in the technology community

The argument

A common misconception that people have regarding freeware is that it is free. Although, this might be true in many cases that is not the primary reason behind the name. Freeware is similar to free speech, not free beer. It is regarded as a fundamental software freedom. This freedom gives its users the right to run, copy, distribute, and edit the code. It essentially allows the user to control what the code does for them rather than letting the code and the developer control the user. In terms of its usefulness, freeware is much more innovative and secure compared to closed software. Freeware becomes a social responsibility when more and more people download it and work to make the code efficient. They start personalizing it to meet their own needs and in the process, end up creating new and more innovative products. Also, loopholes and bugs are often noted and fixed when a larger community is given explicit access to the code. Since the source code is accessible to the public, people are able to study the software and discern all of its intents and capabilities. As a result, most freeware is a lot more secure that non-free (proprietary) software. Given its ethical and economic benefits, freeware is definitely better quality compared to closed software.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Closed software is generally higher in quality compared to open software. This is because companies tend to spend enormous amounts of money and time developing these pieces of code. They can easily spend more than 5 years and a couple of million dollars to see such a product come to light. It is only fair to such companies to protect the source code and not permit the wider community to peek into their work. Another huge disadvantage with freeware is that the user has the permission to later sell the code. Imagine being a company that has spent millions creating something only to later have it sold by someone else who stole their idea; this is exactly what freeware might end up enabling.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The body rests on a terminological error that runs through the whole argument. Freeware means software distributed at no charge, and it is typically proprietary and closed — precisely the category the argument opposes. The freedoms to run, copy, distribute and modify belong to free and open-source software, which is a different thing, so the premise establishes nothing about the entity it names. [Rejecting P2] The security claim is contested. Public source code allows scrutiny, but scrutiny requires reviewers with the expertise and time to do it, and serious vulnerabilities have persisted for years in widely deployed open-source components used by millions. Many eyes are available in principle rather than applied in practice, especially to the unglamorous parts of a codebase. [Rejecting P3] Users personalising code produces variants, not necessarily quality: forks fragment effort, and much modification is never reviewed or merged. The counter-argument on record makes the resourcing point from the other side, arguing that sustained commercial investment — years of paid development, testing and support — is what closed products can guarantee and volunteer projects cannot. [Rejecting C] The counter's own objection is also imprecise, since copyleft licences permit selling copies while requiring that source travel with them, so redistribution is not the appropriation it describes.