What We Teach, What We License, and What We Ignore

Most of us have experienced this since our school days. From an early age, we are taught to use proprietary software: Microsoft Office, Adobe products, Windows. Later, at university, the list grows longer—SPSS, MATLAB, Delphi, and many others. In an ideal situation, this wouldn’t be a problem. If students are financially able to buy the software, or if schools and universities provide proper student licenses, everything works as intended. That’s great. But what if they don’t?

When licenses are not provided, an uncomfortable reality appears: piracy. The situation becomes even worse when teachers or lecturers require students to use specific proprietary software without offering any legal access to it. In a research methodology course, we were taught using SPSS. In scientific computing, we were taught MATLAB (or similar tools). In principle, this is fine. Software is just a medium. Ideally, students are first taught the underlying theory, and the software merely helps automate calculations that would otherwise be tedious and error-prone. MATLAB, for example, also makes visualization much more convenient. The real problem starts when exams or assignments require submissions in a specific proprietary format, while the university provides no license at all.

Of course, many universities do provide licenses—but not all. Sometimes students rely on free trials, which act as a temporary escape hatch. But even then, another issue remains: students are trained exclusively on one specific software ecosystem. Not all students have the time, resources, or background to independently learn alternative tools outside the classroom—especially in developing countries. When educational institutions fail to provide licenses, students are left with only two options: buy the software themselves (buying can also be done illegally), or crack it. The latter is clearly undesirable, yet it is a well-known and often normalized practice in certain societies.

What makes this situation particularly ironic is that instructors often loudly emphasize “avoid plagiarism”, while quietly turning away from software piracy. I try to give them the benefit of the doubt—perhaps they simply don’t realize the contradiction. Many of them are not software engineers or creators, so they may not directly feel the impact.

Still, that doesn’t make it right.

The FOSS

There is, of course, no shortage of free and open-source software out there. This naturally raises a simple question: why don’t we use them? The simplest answer is also the most honest one—we are trained from a very young age to use proprietary software. From childhood, we are introduced to Windows. When we learn to write documents, create presentations, or manage spreadsheets, we are taught Microsoft Office. When we work with vector graphics, we are taught Corel or Adobe. For bitmap image processing, Adobe again. Social science students learn statistics through SPSS; qualitative research introduces NVivo; scientific research relies on OriginPro, MATLAB, and so on.

Now imagine a different default: the laptops we bought came with Linux and LibreOffice preinstalled. Of course, LibreOffice may not feel as convenient as Microsoft Office for advanced academic writing—but then again, there is $\LaTeX$. I’m not saying we should teach $\LaTeX$ to elementary or high school students—that would be extreme. At that level, open-source office tools are more than sufficient, especially since students are not yet producing long or complex documents. Once students reach university, however, LaTeX becomes a very reasonable option.

For vector graphics, we have Inkscape. For bitmap editing, GIMP. For 3D modeling, Blender. For statistics and programming—both beginner-friendly and advanced—we have Python, paired with the beautifully expressive Jupyter Notebook. Personally, I believe that translating statistical theory into lines of code—rather than clicking through menus—leads to deeper, more meaningful learning.

All of this makes one thing very clear: the opportunity to use open-source alternatives is wide open. The real question is, whether we are willing to be open to them.

At the same time, students should not be entirely dependent on what is taught in schools or universities. They must learn independently. In my opinion, the best way to learn is self-learning. Stop immediately asking questions—of course, ask when you truly need urgent clarification—but try first to think, search, reason, answer, and verify things yourself.

Also, sometimes instructors say, “This is not our field, so I won’t go too far into it.” Unfortunately, this is often misunderstood by students as “I don’t need to learn anything outside my major.” I strongly disagree. We should learn across disciplines—or at least those closely connected to our field—as much as possible, even if not deeply. Multidisciplinary knowledge is no longer optional; it is a necessity, alongside having one or two core specializations.

For this last point, I actually have more to say. The issue is interesting enough that I plan to write about it in a future post.

Finally, a small but important note: I am not saying that proprietary software is bad. On the contrary, there are clear reasons why Windows, Microsoft Office, Adobe, and similar tools are so popular. Beyond being widely taught, they are genuinely comfortable and polished products. And that very comfort—the ease they provide—is precisely what made them dominant in the first place.