> Nothing new here, of course. Giving software to everyone has long meant giving it also to the Kims of North Korea, the Al-Assads of Syria, and, in an earlier era of software history, to the Apartheid regime of South Africa.

Couldn't help notice the USA/CIA [1] is missing from that list.

> Global public distribution has long conflicted in principle with arms control, sanctions, and other, less violent alternatives to “boots on the ground”. All of these depend on coordination. They’re undermined by defectors.

Defectors from US interests? The article assumes that large corporations and superpowers are more likely to use software for good, compared to smaller countries and individuals. Once stated explicitly, it's obvious how ridiculous that assumption is. It's better that both North Korea and Monsanto have access to GCC, rather than only Monsanto and whoever else IBM or Microsoft think should have it, in this hypothetical world without free software.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25245026 - discussion about the "The CIA is a terrorist organization" video

Oh, closed source is so much better for autocrats. They can develop their technology without you knowing what's going on. With Open Source they have to relate to an open process to get patches and stay current. Otherwise they will fall back and have security issues that only their own staffing can explore. Let's not forget why closed source is losing.