Most of us are proud to run only free software on our Linux systems. In reality, though, this is not entirely true (a topic for another article). To a large extent, a modern Linux workstation can rarely meet today’s user expectations (GPU drivers, firmware, some multimedia codecs, etc.) without relying on at least some non-free software.
In fact, many of us are probably using more of it than we realize. But have you ever stopped to ask yourself whether you’re running non-free software, and if so, which ones? That’s where an interesting little tool comes in, one I’d like to introduce here: vmrs, short for virtual Richard M. Stallman.
Originally developed in the Debian ecosystem, vrms is a utility that checks installed packages and reports those that do not comply with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Instead of removing software or enforcing policy, vrms focuses on transparency, giving users visibility into which parts of their system fall outside Debian’s definition of free software.
In Debian (and its derivatives), this concept is reflected in the official check-dfsg-status (vrms transitional package name) tool. It evaluates installed packages using Debian’s own metadata, distinguishing between software that belongs in the main archive and packages classified as non-free or contrib. Just install it, launch it, and you’ll see output similar to what’s shown below.
A similar idea has been adapted for RPM-based distributions through vrms-rpm, a community-maintained project that brings the virtual Richard M. Stallman concept to Fedora, RHEL, openSUSE, and related systems.
Instead of relying on Debian’s DFSG categories, vrms-rpm analyzes RPM license tags and compares them against configurable license allowlists, such as Fedora’s approved licenses or SPDX-based definitions.
Despite differences in implementation, both tools serve the same purpose: identifying installed software that does not meet the distribution’s chosen criteria for free or open-source licensing. Keep in mind that they depend entirely on the accuracy of package metadata and make no attempt to modify the system, acting solely as reporting and auditing utilities.
But what about Arch and its derivatives? Well, it’s a whole different story. Unlike Debian and Fedora, Arch does not provide an official equivalent to vrms or DFSG-style compliance checks. And let me tell you – this is not an oversight; it reflects a fundamentally different distribution philosophy.
Arch does not classify packages as free or non-free at the policy level and intentionally avoids making value judgments about software freedom. And as you can see, this doesn’t stop it from being one of the most beloved, widely adopted, and respected distributions in the Linux ecosystem. So let’s not be such purists.
For more information, see Debian’s vrms or check vrms-rpm’s GitHub page.
Seven years ago, I permanently moved away from macOS and Windows to Linux. I’m not a developer, just a guy who needs to get work done. I appreciate all the effort that goes into FOSS and I support with money, bug reports, etc. when I can, but if I were forced to use only FOSS, I couldn’t have switched.
In addition to Nvidia drivers, there are several pieces of software I need for my career (audio engineer) that I have purchased, plus I use Moneydance as a Quicken substitute. One thing I will never do again is support any software that is subscription based.
Does this make me a ‘bad’ Linux user? I don’ t think so!
I purchased a license to Master PDF Editor 5 because it pretty much does everything that you’d want do with PDF-type files and doesn’t put you through any unnecessary pain. Putting users through unnecessary pain is what the majority of software does all too well.
yes, nvidia.