Nonfree Software in My Bank, by Richard Stallman
Original by RMSRichard Stallman presents the moral reasoning for why we don't boycott companies for being users of computing methods that treat their users unjustly.
Recently someone asked me why I am willing to use checks that were printed by a bank which surely used nonfree software to do it. That is a useful question, so I decided to write about why.
I refuse to run nonfree software for making payments, just as for anything else. For payments to companies that have to know my name, such as utility bills and medical treatments, I usually use checks. (In some cases I can use cash, but that doesn't make me anonymous since the bill was sent to me.) But I don't demand that my bank, or the company's bank, use only free software in the printing and processing of my checks. Why don't I?
To see the answer, let's turn the situation around. Why do I insist on using only free software myself? It's because that is crucial for my freedom. If I used a nonfree program, it would infringe my freedom by giving the program's owner power over me.
Likewise for my bank. If the bank uses nonfree software, that infringes the bank's freedom. But here the two cases diverge, because the bank is not me.
I think it is regrettable if the bank cedes its freedom this way, so I would urge the bank to make a plan to move to free software. If I ran the bank, I would implement that change, though it might take a few years to finish.
But the bank is not me, and I do not run it. My freedom doesn't depend on what software the bank uses on its own. Those nonfree programs don't deny freedom to me—only to the bank, which does run them.
I would like to encourage or convince the bank management to run free software instead, but a boycott, being hostile in tone, would be a bad approach for convincing the bank management that their practices are hurting the bank. It would be more likely to make them unwilling to listen.
Meanwhile, I don't have enough leverage to pressure the bank. An effective boycott would require an organized campaign, and the priority for that is for things that impose nonfree software on the public—for instance, internet banking, and all the “smart” devices (malthings). These are things I campaign against, for freedom's sake.
Now let's look at a different case. Suppose I communicate with the bank's web server to give or get information concerning my account. If the web server runs some nonfree software, how does that affect me?
It doesn't affect me directly. The bank runs that software to do its own computing, not mine. (Even when it operates on my bank account, that is nonetheless the bank's computing.) So this case is equivalent to the case of printing checks. That's why, when I consider using a web site, I don't judge based on whether the software that runs it internally is free or not. I do judge by the software it tries to run in my browser.
What matters most to me about an organization's server's software, beyond whether it does its job honestly, is whether it mistreats its users in interacting with them. For instance, by snooping and collecting data from or through the user's browser that the user does not intend to give, harassing users with dark patterns, or imposing DRM on the files it delivers. Those forms of mistreatment are unrelated to whether the software in the server is free. How can we avoid them?
Snooping in a web site operates by communicating with the user's browser. A well-designed free browser won't send any data that the user doesn't authorize sending; that includes your name and location. (Nonfree browsers may help companies snoop on the user—an example of the point that nonfree programs are often malware.) You can reject DRM by ceasing to use a server if it sends you files in secret formats. To avoid dark patterns you have to reject sites that use them.
The overall conclusion: you can lead people to freedom but you can't make them want it. What you can do is try to inspire them, by setting an example of appreciating freedom, so they can see your values in your own life. A bank may be impervious to moral inspiration, but people can find it inspiring. The same things you do to achieve freedom in your life can also inspire them. █
Copyright © 2025 Richard Stallman, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.