If I buy a lawn mower from John Deer, I should have a right to unscrew the top, look inside, and make repairs. I own the lawn mower. It's being used on my lawn.

If I buy a lawn mower from John Deer, I should have a right to unscrew the top, look inside, and make repairs. I own the lawn mower. It's being used on my lawn. If I buy a printer from Canon, I should have the right to refill the ink cartridge with ink from anywhere. If I download or buy a piece of software from you and run it on my hardware, I should have the right to look at the source code, make changes and repairs, and run the modified copy. I purchased the program from you or you gave it to me, it's being run on my hardware. That is the essence of the argument for user freedom - a right to be able to understand and change the code you're running on your hardware. The parallels to the "right to repair" movement should be clear. If you buy that logic, then yes, it is a "bad guy" (or really a "bad company") which deprives users of their right to know what is happening on their own hardware, deprives users of the ability to make simple repairs to software they "own".