In the wake of the Windows Update fiasco, LinuxInsider quoted Stephen O'Grady's explanation of why users trust GNU/Linux more than Windows where the auto-update features are concerned. His explanation really hits the nail on the head - it all comes down to trust.

The LinuxInsider article quotes O'Grady as saying, "...The difference is that most users are inclined to trust Linux distributions further than Microsoft because there are no licensing or DRM issues involved." There it is. In one sentence, O'Grady has summed up the major argument most of the Free/Open Source Software community has been making for some time - it's all about trust.

Remember when Windows Genuine Advantage was "phoning home" - without users' knowledge? And I cannot imagine being able to consent to something about which I have not been informed. Formalities and legalities aside, the issue created something of a backlash for Microsoft. People were not happy about discovering that Windows Genuine Advantage was sending information back to Microsoft without their knowledge. It wreaked of Big Brother. And that isn't the first such problem Microsoft has faced. Now, here we are again, with an auto-update feature that auto-updates itself, even though the administrator has turned off the feature.

Actions like these lead to mistrust. Trust is hard enough to earn, when no one knows your name. But when people come to trust you, only to discover that you are not so trustworthy as you present yourself to be, re-earning that trust can be a hellish exercise. So, too, with Digital Restrictions Management and licensing. Microsoft, as a software development - er, um software marketing company - has no business attempting to play judge, jury and executioner with respect to how people use their computers. If Microsoft were a synonym for the FBI, CIA, or NSA, people would (or should be) be calling for the president's impeachment.

When you combine DRM with restrictive licensing, people begin to loose trust in you and your software. One or the other, by itself, is bad enough. Now throw in the false alarms, the inconveniences, the unnecessary worries over whether you might have overlooked something - are you getting the picture? Now consider that you can enjoy the same or similar features of your current computer platform, but without the headache and hassle of heavily DRM'ed systems, fortified with restrictive licensing agreements. That's right. Imagine being able to do what you do right now without your vendor explicitly telling you that they do not trust you (when it's them that cannot be trusted).

Mistrust breeds mistrust. The vendors don't trust the users, so the users don't trust the vendors. The vendor imposes restrictive terms in the licensing. The customers wonder what the big secret is. Some attempt to find out. The vendor attempts to "crack down", inserting DRM into the software. Then something like the Phone Home fiasco or the auto-update-whether-you-like-it-or-not debacle occurs. Users see even less reason to trust the vendor that doesn't seem to trust them. The vendor-customer relationship falls apart. Non-libre software, combined with DRM and non-libre media formats, tends to impact our society that way, without us consciously realizing it.

You know why GNU/Linux (and even the BSD) users tend to so fanatical about Free Software? It's because freedom and trust go hand in hand. The Quality movement in business management circles emphasizes freeing employees to do their best, rather than strictly control their every movement. The message of trust and freedom working in tandem is crystal clear: Give your employees the freedom to do their jobs and show them you trust them to do their best. Most research seems to uphold the philosophy.

Libre software licenses liberate users to use the software to the best of their abilities and for any purpose they choose. The lack of DRM says, "How you use your computer is up to you. If you use it for illegitimate purposes and get caught, you deserve what you get. If you use it for good, then Godspeed." But libre software does not spy on users, or even give users the impression that it is attempting to do so. It simply does not do things behind your back and without your knowledge.

I don't worry about whether I am violating a software license anymore. I don't worry about whether I should or should not trust my software vendor, or whether they trust me. I don't worry about being labelled a "pirate". I don't wonder if my licenses are up to date, or if I am using a given program within the limitations imposed by the author. I don't worry about the software phoning home, or disabling features I depend on because of a false alarm. I am free from all that because I only use libre software. I can do what I need to do to accomplish my mission.

Aaaahhhhh... I just love the smell of freedom in the morning!