[andygmb]

In the video stallman states that nonfree software is in the control of the developer who owns it, which is true, but isnt a developer of free software equally in control of their software? I dont look into the source of every program on my OS, even though if i was to use 100% free software, I could. This means I am equally depending on the developer of the free software not to be malicious as I am the nonfree software.

[jordigh]

> This means I am equally depending on the developer of the free software not to be malicious as I am the nonfree software.

You're typically not the only person who is capable of looking at the code. If there are malicious features you can, in principle, go and see what they are and disable them. More likely, you can depend on others to do it, or you can even hire someone to do it for you. These options are not even available with non-free software.

There is a further purely psychological matter. People are more likely to behave nicely if they feel watched. If they are publishing the source code, they are less likely to be malicious, because they know that anyone can, in principle, inspect their malice. This results in fewer malicious features.

In the case of Firefox doing things like Pocket or Hello or whatever, people can and do go ahead and replace Firefox with things like GNU Icecat or Debian Iceweasel that can remove these unwanted features. Or Firefox extension authors can provide extensions to modify almost anything about Firefox, a task which is facilitated by having access to all of Firefox's source code.

[yarrel]

They're not equally in control, as you can study, modify and redistribute the code. If you want to make your own version of the software, they can't stop you. So they're not equally in control.

You are relying on them to not be malicious, but you can also rely on anyone who wants to examine the code not to be fired or imprisoned for doing so. That's better than with proprietary software.

[dopu]

The point is that even if you personally didn't look over the source code, you'd be able to if you'd like to, and it's likely that people other than you have already looked at it.

This greatly reduces the opportunity for a developer or some other entity to introduce malicious code -- and even if that occurs, you reserve the right to remove it yourself and modify the programs you use as you see fit.

[n4r9]

At least with free software there is the hope that malicious code will get picked up on by someone with an interest in reading the source, who would then make that functionality known to others.

[krapp]

To be fair, that hope exists with proprietary software as well, it's just that the end user is excluded from the set of eyes watching the code.