GNU/Linux , Free Software, and the Right to Repair

Introduction

Human beings have a natural God-given right to study the world around them to make life better for themselves and their children. The Free Software movement upholds that people have the right to study and improve the software that runs on their computers. The GNU/Linux philosophy holds that an ethically built computer operating system allows the computer user to analyze all of the software that runs on their computer, ensuring that there are no backdoors or other vulnerabilities preinstalled. The right to repair claims that if I purchase a piece of hardware, I should be able to study and fix it myself if I so choose. These concepts are interconnected. The RISC-V central processing unit architecture develops an open-source CPU that does not require patent royalties. As the world gradually shifts towards a concept of greater freedom and openness, people become less susceptible to exploitation, and they are given full control over their computing hardware and software.

In our rapidly advancing digital age, technology has become an integral part of our daily lives. However, the increasing reliance on proprietary software and hardware has led to concerns about control, transparency, and sustainability. The right to repair and free software movements aim to address these issues by advocating for user empowerment and promoting sustainability.  

Mistral and HuggingChat were my research assistants for this article.

GNU/Linux is Gaining Popularity Worldwide Because It Respects People's Right to Inspect and Understand the Code That They Run

The increasing popularity of GNU/Linux is due in part to its commitment to respecting people's right to inspect and understand the code they run. By giving users access to the source code, they can ensure that there are no hidden backdoors or vulnerabilities preinstalled, enhancing security and transparency. As more individuals embrace this philosophy of openness and control over their computing environment, the global community becomes less susceptible to exploitation, leading to a more secure and reliable digital world.

Examples of Nation States Switching From Proprietary Software to Free Software

Several nation states have pursued transitions from proprietary software to free and open-source software (FOSS), driven by motivations such as cost reduction, data sovereignty, security, and technological independence.

Brazil, for instance, initiated a significant shift in the early 2000s under President Lula da Silva, launching the "Free Software Brazil" program to promote FOSS in government and public institutions. Projects like ProLinux encouraged the adoption of Linux in federal agencies, motivated by the desire to reduce reliance on foreign vendors, lower costs, and stimulate local tech development. While some agencies successfully adopted FOSS, bureaucratic resistance limited the scope of the nationwide transition. Similarly, India has promoted FOSS since the 2000s, with Kerala State mandating Linux use in schools as early as 2001. The central government’s National Policy on Software Products (2019) continued to advocate open-source adoption, though results have been mixed, with Kerala serving as a model while other agencies retain proprietary systems.  

China has focused on FOSS to enhance cybersecurity and reduce dependence on U.S. technology, particularly after 2014. The government developed NeoKylin Linux for military and critical infrastructure use, phasing out Windows in many sectors. While NeoKylin is now widespread in sensitive areas, Windows persists in some contexts. France has also embraced FOSS since the 2000s, influenced by the 2004 Rapport Villani, which highlighted its benefits for public agencies. The Ministry of Defense and National Cybersecurity Agency (ANSSI) prioritize Linux-based systems for security and transparency, though France’s adoption remains partial, with proprietary software still in use. Ecuador mandated FOSS in public administration via Executive Decree 1014 (2008), promoting its "Linex" OS to align with anti-capitalist policies and reduce costs. However, this policy was reversed under subsequent administrations, leaving FOSS confined to niche sectors.  

Venezuela’s push for FOSS began in 2004 with Decree 3.390, aiming to counter U.S. tech dominance and lower expenses. The state telecom developed CANTV Linux, though infrastructure challenges and vendor lock-in limited success. Russia, facing sanctions post-2014, developed Astra Linux for government use, accelerating its adoption after 2022. While Astra Linux is now entrenched in military and critical sectors, the full transition remains incomplete. Peru’s 2005 Law 28.592 prioritized open-source in public institutions, motivated by cost savings and transparency, but enforcement has been inconsistent, leaving FOSS underutilized. Germany’s local example, the Munich LiMux Project (2003–2019), transitioned 15,000 desktops to Linux, though compatibility issues led to a partial reversal by 2020. Nationally, federal agencies increasingly adopt FOSS, such as Nextcloud for data storage. Sri Lanka introduced a FOSS policy in 2005 to boost digital literacy and economic development, but adoption has been sporadic, with proprietary software remaining dominant.  

Common challenges across these initiatives include legacy systems, high migration costs, vendor lock-in, political shifts reversing policies, and technical limitations in compatibility. While full transitions are rare, many nations have strategically integrated FOSS in specific sectors to balance cost, security, and sovereignty. These examples underscore the complex interplay of technological, economic, and geopolitical factors shaping national software strategies.

The Synergy Between Free Software and the Right to Repair: Empowering Users and Promoting Sustainability

Section 1: The Right to Repair
The right to repair refers to the principle that users should have the legal and practical ability to fix their own devices or seek repairs from third parties. This concept is critical in reducing electronic waste, as it extends the lifespan of devices and reduces reliance on new purchases. By enabling repairs, consumers can lower costs, avoid planned obsolescence, and support local economies through independent repair services.

Despite its benefits, the movement faces significant challenges, including restrictive legislation, proprietary designs that hinder disassembly, and corporate resistance.

Manufacturers often cite concerns about safety or intellectual property to justify these barriers, but critics argue that such practices prioritize profit over sustainability and consumer autonomy.  

Section 2: Free Software
Free software, defined as software that respects user freedom, regardless of cost, emphasizes the rights to use, study, modify, and distribute technology openly.

This philosophy fosters privacy, security, and innovation by allowing users to audit code, fix vulnerabilities, and adapt tools to their needs. However, the free software community contends with challenges such as vendor lock-in, where companies design ecosystems that trap users into proprietary platforms. A related issue is “digital colonization,” where dominant tech firms impose closed systems on developing regions, stifling local technological sovereignty. These practices undermine the potential of free software to democratize technology and prioritize corporate control over user agency.  

Section 3: Synergy Between the Right to Repair and Free Software
At their core, both movements share values of user control, transparency, and sustainability. They challenge the concentration of power in the hands of a few corporations and advocate for decentralized, community-driven solutions.

For example, companies like Fairphone integrate both principles by designing modular smartphones that are easy to repair and supporting open-source software. Similarly, initiatives like RadicalXChange promote open-access technologies that align with repairability and digital rights. Collaboration between these movements could amplify their impact, fostering a technology landscape where devices are durable, customizable, and ethically designed. By merging efforts, advocates can push for standards that require both hardware accessibility and open-source compatibility, ensuring long-term sustainability.  

Section 4: Policy Recommendations
To advance these goals, policymakers should enact laws that mandate repairability, such as requiring manufacturers to provide spare parts and repair manuals. At the national level, subsidies could incentivize companies that design modular, upgradable devices or adopt free software.

Internationally, treaties could discourage “digital colonialism” by promoting open standards and penalizing anti-repair practices. Parallel to legislative action, public education campaigns and resources are essential. Workshops on repair skills, school curricula emphasizing digital literacy, and public funding for open-source projects could empower users to exercise their rights and make informed choices.  

Conclusions
The right to repair and free software movements share a common vision: empowering users and promoting sustainability in the digital age. By uniting their efforts, these movements can challenge monopolistic practices, reduce environmental harm, and create a technology ecosystem rooted in equity and transparency. It is imperative for policymakers, businesses, and individuals to champion these principles, ensuring that technology evolves as a tool for collective empowerment rather than a means of corporate control. Together, they can shape a future where innovation serves humanity, andnot the other way around.