Hmm, well based on that super broad definition, sure, proprietary software is "often malware". But usually "malware" is understood to mean software that exploits vulnerabilities in a computer system, not merely software with DRM, paywalls, banners, ads, etc.
I think GNU might need to pick a different term here than "malware" unless they are intentionally fear mongering to get the free software conversation going.
GNU picked the term "malware" on purpose. I think the purpose was to (slightly) confuse, connect a known bad thing with commercial software, and spur further dissuasion. I doubt they intended to fearmonger though. That said, your intuition that they picked it to "get the free software conversation going" is, IMO, spot on.
They did the same thing with "free" in "free software". When people misinterpreted what they meant, they used that as an opportunity to ... explain their point of view. Many here may not remember when conversations like "it's free software" ... "no, not just free in cost, but free as in freedom" ... "yes, I know it's cost free, but you can charge money if you want" ... "yes, I know no one charges anything, but it's really about freedom!" was a common conversation in tech circles. I suspect a similar goal for "malware" now.
If clarity was a primary goal, they would have, IMO, picked different words.
The definition of malware is social construct, not a technical one, otherwise Powershell.exe would light up like a Christmas tree.
The only reasonable way to talk about malware is with respect to users' wishes and desires.
I'll note that AV vendors invented a "less bad" label, PUP, for less-destructive malware. That doesn't make it not malware though.
So if someone says "I won't give you X software unless you pay Y dollars" that is fine
However if they do pay the expectation is they also get access to the source code if they're running the software on their own machine (depending on which license we're talking about of course)
How can you say that though if someone can just get a copy from a peer without paying you? People just go around the paywall and grab a free copy without payment which is why DRM exists at all. So then I make it so the software has to connect to a server to check if you've paid for it, and now suddenly that's mistreating the user?
You can call it DRM, you can also call it user restriction.
You can call it serving ads, you can also call it remote code injection.
You can call it subscription based, you can also call it user lock-in or remote killswitch.
There is not a lot of modern proprietary software that wouldn't fall into these categories. I know a lot of people claim not to care about it, that is a separate issue, but the fact is that most proprietary software is in fact malware, even if people don't mind installing malware.
> You can call it subscription based, you can also call it user lock-in or remote killswitch.
If you stop paying for your gym membership and your access card gets automatically revoked, do you consider that to be some kind of physical instantiation of malware?
Metaphors don't work as well as people think.
I think it's this.
However, they aren't wrong, per se. Users should have control over their systems and their privacy. But hyperbole and fear mongering are not very effective at affecting change in the system.
I would argue that they have a noble mission but take it to such an extreme as to not be very practical.
> Programs are also considered malware if they secretly act against the interests of the computer user
It's fair to say proprietary software often creates an ability and incentive to act against the interests the user which results in it becoming malware.
> Software whose functioning intentionally mistreats the user is called malware
There is nothing stopping you from removing GNU Emacs. There are features missing in Roam Research. But in Emacs org-roam, if you are missing a feature, you can ask any programmer– they don't have to be an org-roam maintainer– to add a feature as it is free software. Roam intentionally takes away the freedom to modify the software.
The way I remember it “malware” as a term was invented to be a bigger umbrella term to account for things like bonzi buddy when “virus” wasn’t quite as good of a description.
Today, Windows itself comes bundled not just with ads, but with a keylogger and monitor all you do on your computer.
Mainstream software have turned themselves into malware in a desperate attempt for monetization in a world where nobody wants to pay for software (in parts because FLOSS alternatives exist, but not only).
If Bonzi Buddy counts as malware, so does the Facebook app.
Try to find me a modern closed source program, with big userbase without such telemtry.
What is malware? Is that browser toolbar your aunt has on ther internet explorer Malware? Probably yes.
Is a "Cleaner" Program that does effectively nothing except Phone home Malware? Probably Yes.
Is a software that does similar things behind your back without your knowledge, but that has some useful parts to it Malware? Maybe Yes?