>>80
You also missed this bit
Proprietary software is evil because users are not permitted to control the software
The point is that users can't say for sure if a proprietary program does what it claims without any user hostile feature. The fact is, it's completely impractical to audit what a program does without access to the source. When users have access to the source code one can thoroughly audit the program's function.
The source code is a critical part of being able to control a program. The source code to proprietary software is normally withheld from the user. Users are normally forbidden to study the functioning of a proprietary program (even without the source code). The effect of withholding the source and forbidding users to study the software is: users become helpless and can only rely on the goodwill of the owner. How much control does a user have when one requires explicit permission to get changes made to a program?
Users are normally forbidden to share knowledge about the functioning of the software. Users are normally forbidden from sharing the software itself without the explicit approval of the owner. The effect of this control of knowledge means that communities are divided from helping one another. Software is a tool designed to process information and the software owners want to control the users' ability to share with one another.
When users don't control the program, the program controls the users. The developer controls the program, and through it controls the users. This nonfree or “proprietary” program is therefore an instrument of unjust power.