diff options
| author | Christian Grothoff <christian@grothoff.org> | 2016-02-24 09:41:40 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Christian Grothoff <christian@grothoff.org> | 2016-02-24 09:41:40 +0100 |
| commit | f91fa734c739671c3094a488def366febc2a208a (patch) | |
| tree | 3fd547475f819e62cd5c79a44070a2f79461d556 /examples/blog/articles/scrap1_16.html | |
| parent | 37d8bf6f436e98b760e1c265f400c349cd8ee4b0 (diff) | |
| download | merchant-f91fa734c739671c3094a488def366febc2a208a.tar.gz merchant-f91fa734c739671c3094a488def366febc2a208a.tar.bz2 merchant-f91fa734c739671c3094a488def366febc2a208a.zip | |
rename to match site names
Diffstat (limited to 'examples/blog/articles/scrap1_16.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | examples/blog/articles/scrap1_16.html | 715 |
1 files changed, 715 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_16.html b/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_16.html new file mode 100644 index 00000000..2cfd1452 --- /dev/null +++ b/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_16.html @@ -0,0 +1,715 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/loose.dtd"> +<html> +<!-- This is the second edition of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman. + +Free Software Foundation + +51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor + +Boston, MA 02110-1335 +Copyright C 2002, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc. +Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire book are permitted +worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is +preserved. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations +of this book from the original English into another language provided +the translation has been approved by the Free Software Foundation and +the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all +copies. + +ISBN 978-0-9831592-0-9 +Cover design by Rob Myers. + +Cover photograph by Peter Hinely. + --> +<!-- Created on February 18, 2016 by texi2html 1.82 +texi2html was written by: + Lionel Cons <Lionel.Cons@cern.ch> (original author) + Karl Berry <karl@freefriends.org> + Olaf Bachmann <obachman@mathematik.uni-kl.de> + and many others. +Maintained by: Many creative people. +Send bugs and suggestions to <texi2html-bug@nongnu.org> +--> +<head> +<title>Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.: 16. Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) +Because They Are Loaded or Confusing</title> + +<meta name="description" content="This is the second edition of Richard Stallman's collection of essays."> +<meta name="keywords" content="Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.: 16. Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) +Because They Are Loaded or Confusing"> +<meta name="resource-type" content="document"> +<meta name="distribution" content="global"> +<meta name="Generator" content="texi2html 1.82"> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> +<style type="text/css"> +<!-- +a.summary-letter {text-decoration: none} +blockquote.smallquotation {font-size: smaller} +pre.display {font-family: serif} +pre.format {font-family: serif} +pre.menu-comment {font-family: serif} +pre.menu-preformatted {font-family: serif} +pre.smalldisplay {font-family: serif; font-size: smaller} +pre.smallexample {font-size: smaller} +pre.smallformat {font-family: serif; font-size: smaller} +pre.smalllisp {font-size: smaller} +span.roman {font-family:serif; font-weight:normal;} +span.sansserif {font-family:sans-serif; font-weight:normal;} +ul.toc {list-style: none} +--> +</style> +<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../style.css"> + + +</head> + +<body lang="en" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#800080" alink="#FF0000"> + +<a name="Words-to-Avoid"></a> +<header><div id="logo"><img src="../gnu.svg" height="100" width="100"></div><h1>Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.</h1></header><section id="main"><a name="Words-to-Avoid-_0028or-Use-with-Care_0029--Because-They-Are-Loaded-or-Confusing"></a> +<h1 class="chapter"> 16. Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) <br>Because They Are Loaded or Confusing </h1> + +<a name="index-call-to-action_002c-use-correct-terminology-_0028see-also-terminology_0029-7"></a> +<a name="index-terminology_002c-importance-of-using-correct-7"></a> +<p>There are a number of words and phrases that we recommend avoiding, or +avoiding in certain contexts and usages. Some are ambiguous or +misleading; others presuppose a viewpoint that we hope you disagree +with. (See also “Categories of Free and Nonfree Software,” on +p. @refx{Categories-pg}{.) +</p> +<a name="BSD_002dStyle"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> BSD-Style </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060BSD_002dstyle_002c_0027_0027-problematic-term"></a> +<p>The expression “BSD-style license” leads to confusion because it +lumps together licenses that have important differences. For instance, +the original +<a name="index-BSD-licenses-_0028see-also-both-_0060_0060BSD_002dstyle_0027_0027-and-GPL_0029-1"></a> +<a name="index-GPL_002c-BSD-license-and"></a> +BSD license with the advertising clause is incompatible with the GNU +General Public License, but the revised BSD license is compatible with +the GPL. +</p> +<p>To avoid confusion, it is best to name the specific license in +question and avoid the vague term “BSD-style.” +</p> +<a name="Closed"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Closed </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060closed_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term"></a> +<p>Describing nonfree software as “closed” clearly refers to the term +“open source.” In the free software movement, we do not want to be +confused with the open source camp, so we are careful to avoid saying +things that would encourage people to lump us in with them. For +instance, we avoid describing nonfree software as “closed.” We call +it “nonfree” or “proprietary.” +</p> +<p>@vglue -13pt@null +<a name="Cloud-Computing"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Cloud Computing </h3> +</p> +<a name="index-_0060_0060cloud-computing_002c_0027_0027-avoid-use-of-term"></a> +<p>The term “cloud computing” is a marketing buzzword with no clear +meaning. It is used for a range of different activities whose only +common characteristic is that they use the Internet for something +beyond transmitting files. Thus, the term is a nexus of confusion. If +you base your thinking on it, your thinking will be vague. +</p> +<p>When thinking about or responding to a statement someone else has made +using this term, the first step is to clarify the topic. Which kind of +activity is the statement really about, and what is a good, clear term +for that activity? Once the topic is clear, the discussion can head +for a useful conclusion. +</p> +<p>Curiously, +<a name="index-Ellison_002c-Larry"></a> +Larry Ellison, a proprietary software +<a name="index-developers_002c-proprietary-software-2"></a> +developer, also noted the vacuity of the term “cloud +computing.”<a name="DOCF32" href="#FOOT32">(32)</a>He decided to use the term anyway +{@parfillskip=0pt@parbecause, as a proprietary software developer, he isn’t motivated by +the same ideals as we are. +</p> +<a name="Commercial"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Commercial </h3> + +<a name="index-commercial-software-_0028see-also-software_0029-1"></a> +<a name="index-_0060_0060commercial_002c_0027_0027-problematic-use-of-term"></a> +<a name="index-software_002c-commercial-_0028see-also-commercial-software_0029-1"></a> +<p>Please don’t use “commercial” as a synonym for “nonfree.” That +confuses two entirely different issues. +</p> +<p>A program is commercial if it is developed as a business activity. A +commercial program can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of +distribution. Likewise, a program developed by a school or an +individual can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of +distribution. The two questions—what sort of entity developed the +program and what freedom its users have—are independent. +</p> +<a name="index-universities-1"></a> +<p>In the first decade of the free software movement, free software +packages were almost always noncommercial; the components of the +GNU/Linux operating system were developed by individuals or by +nonprofit organizations such as the FSF and universities. Later, in +the 1990s, free commercial software started to appear. +</p> +<p>Free commercial software is a contribution to our community, so we +should encourage it. But people who think that “commercial” means +“nonfree” will tend to think that the “free commercial” +combination is self-contradictory, and dismiss the possibility. Let’s +be careful not to use the word “commercial” in that way. +</p> +<a name="Compensation"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Compensation </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060compensation_002c_0027_0027-false-assumptions-connected-to-term"></a> +<a name="index-copyright_002c-false-assumptions-related-to-_0060_0060compensation_0027_0027-for-authors"></a> +<p>To speak of “compensation for authors” in connection with copyright +carries the assumptions that (1) copyright exists for the sake of +authors and (2) whenever we read something, we take on a debt to the +author which we must then repay. The first assumption is simply false, +and the second is outrageous. +</p> +<a name="Consumer"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Consumer </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060consumer_002c_0027_0027-problematic-use-of-term-_0028see-also-_0060_0060open-source_0027_0027_0029"></a> +<p>The term “consumer,” when used to refer to computer users, is loaded +with assumptions we should reject. Playing a digital recording, or +running a program, does not consume it. +</p> +<p>The terms “producer” and “consumer” come from economic theory, and +bring with them its narrow perspective and misguided assumptions. They +tend to warp your thinking. +</p> +<p>In addition, describing the users of software as “consumers” +presumes a narrow role for them: it regards them as cattle that +passively graze on what others make available to them. +</p> +<p>This kind of thinking leads to travesties like the +<a name="index-Consumer-Broadband-and-Digital-Television-Promotion-Act-_0028CBDTPA_0029"></a> +CBDTPA, the “Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act,” +which would require copying restriction facilities in every digital +device. If all the users do is “consume,” then why should they mind? +</p> +<p>The shallow economic conception of users as “consumers” tends to go +hand in hand with the idea that published works are mere “content.” +</p> +<p>To describe people who are not limited to passive use of works, we +suggest terms such as “individuals” and “citizens.” +</p> +<a name="Content"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Content </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060content_002c_0027_0027-problematic-use-of-term"></a> +<p>If you want to describe a feeling of comfort and satisfaction, by all +means say you are “content,” but using the word as a noun to +describe written and other works of authorship adopts an attitude you +might rather avoid. It regards these works as a commodity whose +purpose is to fill a box and make money. In effect, it disparages the +works themselves. +</p> +<p>Those who use this term are often the publishers that push for +increased copyright power in the name of the authors (“creators,” as +they say) of the works. The term “content” reveals their real +attitude towards these works and their authors. (See +<a name="index-Love_002c-Courtney"></a> +Courtney +Love’s open letter to +<a name="index-Case_002c-Steve"></a> +Steve Case<a name="DOCF33" href="#FOOT33">(33)</a> +and search for “content provider” in that page. Alas, Ms. Love is +unaware that the term +<a name="index-_0060_0060intellectual-property_002c_0027_0027-bias-and-fallacy-of-term-_0028see-also-ownership_0029-5"></a> +“intellectual property” is also biased and confusing.) +</p> +<p>However, as long as other people use the term “content provider,” +political dissidents can well call themselves “malcontent +providers.” +</p> +<p>The term “content management” takes the prize for vacuity. +“Content” means “some sort of information,” and “management” in +this context means “doing something with it.” So a “content +management system” is a system for doing something to some sort of +information. Nearly all programs fit that description. +</p> +<p>In most cases, that term really refers to a system for updating pages +on a web site. For that, we recommend the term “web site revision +system” (WRS). +</p> +<a name="Creator"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Creator </h3> + +<a name="index-copyright_002c-_0060_0060creator_0027_0027"></a> +<a name="index-_0060_0060creator_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term"></a> +<p>The term “creator” as applied to authors implicitly compares them to +a deity (“the creator”). The term is used by publishers to elevate +authors’ moral standing above that of ordinary people in order to +justify giving them increased copyright power, which the publishers +can then exercise in their name. We recommend saying “author” +instead. However, in many cases “copyright holder” is what you +really mean. +</p> +<a name="Digital-Goods"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Digital Goods </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060digital-goods_002c_0027_0027-problematic-term"></a> +<p>The term “digital goods,” as applied to copies of works of +authorship, erroneously identifies them with physical goods—which +cannot be copied, and which therefore have to be manufactured and +sold. +</p> +<a name="Digital-Rights-Management"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Digital Rights Management </h3> + +<a name="index-DRM_002c-call-it-_0060_0060Digital-Restrictions-Management_0027_0027"></a> +<a name="index-_0060_0060Digital-Rights-Management_002c_0027_0027-avoid-use-of-term-_0028see-also-DRM_0029"></a> +<p>“Digital Rights Management” refers to technical schemes designed to +impose restrictions on computer users. The use of the word “rights” +in this term is propaganda, designed to lead you unawares into seeing +the issue from the viewpoint of the few that impose the restrictions, +and ignoring that of the general public on whom these restrictions are +imposed. +</p> +<p>Good alternatives include “Digital Restrictions Management,” and +“digital handcuffs.” +</p> +<a name="Ecosystem"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Ecosystem </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060ecosystem_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-description-of-free-software-community"></a> +<p>It is a mistake to describe the free software community, or any human +community, as an “ecosystem,” because that word implies the absence +of ethical judgment. +</p> +<p>The term “ecosystem” implicitly suggests an attitude of +nonjudgmental observation: don’t ask how what <em>should</em> happen, +just study and explain what <em>does</em> happen. In an ecosystem, some +organisms consume other organisms. We do not ask whether it is fair +for an owl to eat a mouse or for a mouse to eat a plant, we only +observe that they do so. Species’ populations grow or shrink according +to the conditions; this is neither right nor wrong, merely an +ecological phenomenon. +</p> +<p>By contrast, beings that adopt an ethical stance towards their +surroundings can decide to preserve things that, on their own, might +vanish—such as civil society, democracy, human rights, peace, public +health, clean air and water, endangered species, traditional +arts…and computer users’ freedom. +</p> +<a name="For-Free"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> For Free </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060for-free_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term"></a> +<p>If you want to say that a program is free software, please don’t say +that it is available “for free.” That term specifically means “for +zero price.” Free software is a matter of freedom, not price. +</p> +<p>Free software copies are often available for free—for example, by +downloading via FTP. But free software copies are also available for a +price on CD-ROMs; meanwhile, proprietary software copies are +occasionally available for free in promotions, and some proprietary +packages are normally available at no charge to certain users. +</p> +<p>To avoid confusion, you can say that the program is available +“as free software.” +</p> +<a name="Freely-Available"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Freely Available </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060freely-available_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term"></a> +<p>Don’t use “freely available software” as a synonym for “free +software.” The terms are not equivalent. Software is “freely +available” if anyone can easily get a copy. “Free software” is +defined in terms of the freedom of users that have a copy of it. These +are answers to different questions. +</p> +<a name="Freeware-1"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Freeware </h3> + +<a name="index-freeware-_0028see-also-software_0029-1"></a> +<p>Please don’t use the term “freeware” as a synonym for “free +software.” The term “freeware” was used often in the 1980s for +programs released only as executables, with source code not +available. Today it has no particular agreed-on definition. +</p> +<p>When using languages other than English, please avoid borrowing +English terms such as “free software” or “freeware.” It is better +to translate the term “free software” into your language. (Please +see p. @refx{FS Translations-pg}{ for a list of recommended unambiguous +translations for the term “free software” into various languages.) +</p> +<p>By using a word in your own language, you show that you are really +referring to freedom and not just parroting some mysterious foreign +marketing concept. The reference to freedom may at first seem strange +or disturbing to your compatriots, but once they see that it means +exactly what it says, they will really understand what the issue is. +</p> +<a name="Give-Away-Software"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Give Away Software </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060give-away-software_002c_0027_0027-misleading-use-of-term-1"></a> +<p>It’s misleading to use the term “give away” to mean “distribute a +program as free software.” This locution has the same problem as +“for free”: it implies the issue is price, not freedom. One way to +avoid the confusion is to say “release as free software.” +</p> +<a name="Hacker"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Hacker </h3> + +<a name="index-hackers-7"></a> +<a name="index-_0060_0060hacker_002c_0027_0027-actual-meaning-of-term-_0028see-also-_0060_0060cracker_0027_0027_0029-1"></a> +<a name="index-MIT-5"></a> +<p>A hacker is someone who enjoys playful cleverness<a name="DOCF34" href="#FOOT34">(34)</a>—not +necessarily with computers. The programmers in the old MIT free +software community of the 60s and 70s referred to themselves as +hackers. Around 1980, journalists who discovered the hacker community +mistakenly took the term to mean “security breaker.” +</p> +<p>Please don’t spread this mistake. People who break security are +“crackers.” +</p> +<a name="Intellectual-Property"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Intellectual Property </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060intellectual-property_002c_0027_0027-bias-and-fallacy-of-term-_0028see-also-ownership_0029-6"></a> +<a name="index-trademarks-and_002for-trademark-law-1"></a> +<p>Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as “intellectual +property”—a term also applied to patents, trademarks, and other +more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and +differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is +best to talk specifically about “copyright,” or about “patents,” +or about “trademarks.” +</p> +<p>The term “intellectual property” carries a hidden assumption—that +the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an +analogy with physical objects, and our conception of them as physical +property. +</p> +<p>When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial +difference between material objects and information: information can +be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can’t +be. +</p> +<p>To avoid spreading unnecessary bias and confusion, it is best to adopt +a firm policy not to speak or even think in terms of “intellectual +property.” +</p> +<p>The hypocrisy of calling these powers “rights” is starting to make +the +<a name="index-World-_0060_0060Intellectual-Property_0027_0027-Organization-_0028WIPO_0029-_0028see-also-_0060_0060intellectual-property_0027_0027_0029-2"></a> +World “Intellectual Property” Organization embarrassed. +</p> +<a name="LAMP-System"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> LAMP System </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060LAMP-system_002c_0027_0027-problematic-term-_0028see-also-GLAMP_0029"></a> +<p>“LAMP” stands for “Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP”—a common +combination of software to use on a web server, except that “Linux” +in this context really refers to the GNU/Linux system. So instead of +“LAMP” it should be +<a name="index-GLAMP-_0028GNU_002c-Linux_002c-Apache_002c-MySQL-and-PHP_0029-system"></a> +<a name="index-GNU_002c-GLAMP-_0028GNU_002c-Linux_002c-Apache_002c-MySQL-and-PHP_0029-system"></a> +“GLAMP”: “GNU, Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP.” +</p> +<a name="Linux-System"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Linux System </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060Linux-system_002c_0027_0027-avoid-use-of-term"></a> +<a name="index-Torvalds_002c-Linus-1"></a> +<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-Project-7"></a> +<a name="index-kernel_002c-Linux-1"></a> +<a name="index-Linux-kernel-1"></a> +<a name="index-_0060_0060Linux_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term-_0028see-also-open-source_0029-3"></a> +<p>Linux is the name of the kernel that Linus Torvalds developed starting +in 1991. The operating system in which Linux is used is basically GNU +with Linux added. To call the whole system “Linux” is both unfair +and confusing. Please call the complete system GNU/Linux, both to give +the GNU Project credit and to distinguish the whole system from the +kernel alone. +</p> +<a name="Market"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Market </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060market_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term"></a> +<p>It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the +software users in general, as a “market.” +</p> +<p>This is not to say there is no room for markets in the free software +community. If you have a free software support business, then you +have clients, and you trade with them in a market. As long as you +respect their freedom, we wish you success in your market. +</p> +<p>But the free software movement is a social movement, not a business, +and the success it aims for is not a market success. We are trying to +serve the public by giving it freedom—not competing to draw business +away from a rival. To equate this campaign for freedom to a business’ +efforts for mere success is to deny the importance of freedom and +legitimize proprietary software. +</p> +<a name="MP3-Player"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> MP3 Player </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060MP3-Player_002c_0027_0027-problematic-use-of-term"></a> +<a name="index-MP3-1"></a> +<a name="index-Ogg-Vorbis"></a> +<a name="index-FLAC"></a> +<p>In the late 1990s it became feasible to make portable, solid-state +digital audio players. Most support the patented MP3 codec, but not +all. Some support the patent-free audio codecs Ogg Vorbis and FLAC, +and may not even support MP3-encoded files at all, precisely to avoid +these patents. To call such players “MP3 players” is not only +confusing, it also puts MP3 in an undeserved position of privilege +which encourages people to continue using that vulnerable format. We +suggest the terms “digital audio player,” or simply “audio player” +if context permits. +</p> +<a name="Open"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Open </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060open_002c_0027_0027-misleading-use-of-term-1"></a> +<p>Please avoid using the term “open” or “open source” as a +substitute for “free software.” Those terms refer to a different +position based on different values. Free software is a political +movement; open source is a development model. +</p> +<p>When referring to the open source position, using its name is +appropriate; but please do not use it to label us or our work—that +leads people to think we share those views. +</p> +<a name="PC"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> PC </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060PC_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term"></a> +<p>It’s OK to use the abbreviation “PC” to refer to a certain kind of +computer hardware, but please don’t use it with the implication that +the computer is running Microsoft +<a name="index-Windows-1"></a> +Windows. If you install GNU/Linux on the same computer, it is still a +PC. +</p> +<p>The term “WC” has been suggested for a computer running Windows. +</p> +<a name="Photoshop"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Photoshop </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060photoshop_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term"></a> +<p>Please avoid using the term “photoshop” as a verb, meaning any kind +of photo manipulation or image editing in general. Photoshop is just +the name of one particular image editing program, which should be +avoided since it is proprietary. There are plenty of free +alternatives, such as +<a name="index-GIMP"></a> +<a name="index-GNU_002c-GIMP"></a> +GIMP. +</p> +<a name="Piracy"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Piracy </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060piracy_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term-4"></a> +<p>Publishers often refer to copying they don’t approve of as “piracy.” +In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking +ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on +them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the +world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) +circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions +more complete.) +</p> +<p>If you don’t believe that copying not approved by the publisher is +just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word +“piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as “unauthorized +copying” (or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is +illegal) are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer +to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your +neighbor.” +</p> +<a name="PowerPoint"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> PowerPoint </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060PowerPoint_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term"></a> +<p>Please avoid using the term “PowerPoint” to mean any kind of slide +presentation. “PowerPoint” is just the name of one particular +proprietary program to make presentations, and there are plenty of +free alternatives, such as +<a name="index-TeX-3"></a> +TeX’s +<a name="index-beamer-class_002c-TeX"></a> +<tt>beamer</tt> class +and +<a name="index-OpenOffice_002eorg"></a> +OpenOffice.org’s +<a name="index-Impress_002c-OpenOffice_002eorg"></a> +Impress. +</p> +<a name="Protection"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Protection </h3> + +<a name="index-copyright_002c-_0060_0060protection_0027_0027"></a> +<a name="index-_0060_0060protection_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term"></a> +<p>Publishers’ lawyers love to use the term “protection” to describe +copyright. This word carries the implication of preventing destruction +or suffering; therefore, it encourages people to identify with the +owner and publisher who benefit from copyright, rather than with the +users who are restricted by it. +</p> +<p>It is easy to avoid “protection” and use neutral terms instead. For +example, instead of saying, “Copyright protection lasts a very long +time,” you can say, “Copyright lasts a very long time.” +</p> +<p>If you want to criticize copyright instead of supporting it, you can +use the term “copyright restrictions.” Thus, you can say, +“Copyright restrictions last a very long time.” +</p> +<p>The term “protection” is also used to describe malicious features. +For instance, “copy protection” is a feature that interferes with +copying. From the user’s point of view, this is obstruction. So we +could call that malicious feature “copy obstruction.” More often it +is called Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)—see the Defective by +Design campaign, at <a href="http://www.defectivebydesign.org">http://www.defectivebydesign.org</a>. +</p> +<a name="RAND-_0028Reasonable-and-Non_002dDiscriminatory_0029"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> RAND (Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060RAND-_0028Reasonable-and-Non_002dDiscriminatory_0029_002c_0027_0027-avoid-use-of-term-_0028see-also-patents_0029"></a> +<p>Standards bodies that promulgate patent-restricted standards that +prohibit free software typically have a policy of obtaining patent +licenses that require a fixed fee per copy of a conforming program. +They often refer to such licenses by the term “RAND,” which stands +for “reasonable and non-discriminatory.” +</p> +<p>That term whitewashes a class of patent licenses that are normally +neither reasonable nor nondiscriminatory. It is true that these +licenses do not discriminate against any specific person, but they do +discriminate against the free software community, and that makes them +unreasonable. Thus, half of the term “RAND” is deceptive and the +other half is prejudiced. +</p> +<p>Standards bodies should recognize that these licenses are +discriminatory, and drop the use of the term “reasonable and +non-discriminatory” or “RAND” to describe them. Until they do so, +writers who do not wish to join in the whitewashing would do well to +reject that term. To accept and use it merely because patent-wielding +companies have made it widespread is to let those companies dictate +the views you express. +</p> +<a name="index-patents_002c-_0060_0060uniform-fee-only_0027_0027"></a> +<p>We suggest the term “uniform fee only,” or “UFO” for short, as a +replacement. It is accurate because the only condition in these +licenses is a uniform royalty fee. +</p> +<a name="Sell-Software"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Sell Software </h3> + +<a name="index-selling_002c-_0060_0060sell-software_002c_0027_0027-ambiguous-term"></a> +<p>The term “sell software” is ambiguous. Strictly speaking, exchanging +a copy of a free program for a sum of money is selling; but people +usually associate the term “sell” with proprietary restrictions on +the subsequent use of the software. You can be more precise, and +prevent confusion, by saying either “distributing copies of a program +for a fee” or “imposing proprietary restrictions on the use of a +program,” depending on what you mean. +</p> +<p>See “Selling Free Software” (p. @refx{Selling-pg}{) for further +discussion of this issue. +</p> +<a name="Software-Industry"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Software Industry </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060software-industry_002c_0027_0027-problematic-term"></a> +<p>The term “software industry” encourages people to imagine that +software is always developed by a sort of factory and then delivered +to “consumers.” The free software community shows this is not the +case. Software businesses exist, and various businesses develop free +and/or nonfree software, but those that develop free software are not +run like factories. +</p> +<p>The term “industry” is being used as propaganda by advocates of +software patents. They call software development “industry” and then +try to argue that this means it should be subject to patent +monopolies. The +<a name="index-European-Parliament"></a> +<a name="index-European-Union_002c-proposed-European-Union-software-patents-directive"></a> +<a name="index-patents_002c-proposed-European-Union-software-patents-directive"></a> +European Parliament, rejecting software patents in +2003,<a name="DOCF35" href="#FOOT35">(35)</a> voted to define “industry” as “automated +production of material goods.” +</p> +<a name="Theft"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Theft </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060theft_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term-1"></a> +<p>Copyright apologists often use words like “stolen” and “theft” to +describe copyright infringement. At the same time, they ask us to +treat the legal system as an authority on ethics: if copying is +forbidden, it must be wrong. +</p> +<p>So it is pertinent to mention that the legal system—at least in the +US—rejects the idea that copyright infringement is “theft.” +Copyright apologists are making an appeal to authority…and +misrepresenting what authority says. +</p> +<p>The idea that laws decide what is right or wrong is mistaken in +general. Laws are, at their best, an attempt to achieve justice; to +say that laws define justice or ethical conduct is turning things +upside down. +</p> +<a name="Trusted-Computing"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Trusted Computing </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060trusted-computing_002c_0027_0027-avoid-use-of-term-_0028see-also-treacherous-computing_0029"></a> +<p>“Trusted computing” is the proponents’ name for a scheme to redesign +computers so that application +<a name="index-developers_002c-proprietary-software-3"></a> +developers can trust your computer to obey them instead of you. From +their point of view, it is “trusted”; from your point of view, it is +<a name="index-treacherous-computing"></a> +“treacherous.” +</p> +<a name="Vendor"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Vendor </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060vendor_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term"></a> +<p>Please don’t use the term “vendor” to refer generally to anyone that +develops or packages software. Many programs are developed in order to +sell copies, and their +<a name="index-developers_002c-term-_0060_0060vendor_0027_0027-and"></a> +developers are therefore their vendors; this even includes some free +software packages. However, many programs are developed by volunteers +or organizations which do not intend to sell copies. These developers +are not vendors. Likewise, only some of the packagers of GNU/Linux +distributions are vendors. We recommend the general term “supplier” +instead. +</p> +<a name="index-terminology_002c-importance-of-using-correct-8"></a> +<a name="index-call-to-action_002c-use-correct-terminology-_0028see-also-terminology_0029-8"></a> + + + +<div class="footnote"> +<hr> +<h3>Footnotes</h3> +<h3><a name="FOOT32" href="#DOCF32">(32)</a></h3> +<p>Dan Farber, “Oracle’s Ellison Nails Cloud +Computing,” 26 September 2008, +<a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13953_3-10052188-80.html">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13953_3-10052188-80.html</a>. +@vglue -1pc +</p><h3><a name="FOOT33" href="#DOCF33">(33)</a></h3> +<p>An unedited transcript of American rock musician +Courtney Love’s 16 May 2000 speech to the Digital Hollywood +online-entertainment conference, in New York, is available at +<a href="http://salon.com/technology/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html">http://salon.com/technology/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html</a>. +@vglue -1pc +</p><h3><a name="FOOT34" href="#DOCF34">(34)</a></h3> +<p>See my +article, “On Hacking,” at +<a href="http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html">http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html</a>. +@vglue -1pc +</p><h3><a name="FOOT35" href="#DOCF35">(35)</a></h3> +<p>“Directive on the patentability of +computer-implemented inventions,” 24 September 2003, +<a href="http://eupat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309">http://eupat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309</a>. +@vglue -1pc +</p></div> +<hr size="2"> +</body> +</html> |