diff options
author | Christian Grothoff <christian@grothoff.org> | 2020-10-11 13:29:45 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Christian Grothoff <christian@grothoff.org> | 2020-10-11 13:29:45 +0200 |
commit | 1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce (patch) | |
tree | 53117a55c27601e92172ea82f1d8cd11d355c06c /talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/words-to-avoid.html | |
parent | 2e665813a44988bfd906c0fab773f82652047841 (diff) | |
download | taler-merchant-demos-1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce.tar.gz taler-merchant-demos-1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce.tar.bz2 taler-merchant-demos-1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce.zip |
add i18n FSFS
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/words-to-avoid.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/words-to-avoid.html | 1419 |
1 files changed, 1419 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/words-to-avoid.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/words-to-avoid.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a6d3725 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/words-to-avoid.html @@ -0,0 +1,1419 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.90 --> +<title>Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing</h2> + +<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 disagree with, and +we hope you disagree with it too.</p> + +<div class="announcement"> +<blockquote><p>Also note <a href="/philosophy/categories.html">Categories of Free +Software</a>, +<a href="/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html">Why Call It The +Swindle?</a></p></blockquote> +</div> + +<p><span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-START --> “<a + href="#Ad-blocker">Ad-blocker</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Access">Access</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Alternative">Alternative</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Assets">Assets</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#BSD-style">BSD-style</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Closed">Closed</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#CloudComputing">Cloud Computing</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Commercial">Commercial</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Compensation">Compensation</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Consume">Consume</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Consumer">Consumer</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Content">Content</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#CopyrightOwner">Copyright Owner</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#CreativeCommonsLicensed">Creative Commons licensed</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Creator">Creator</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#DigitalGoods">Digital Goods</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#DigitalLocks">Digital Locks</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#DigitalRightsManagement">Digital Rights Management</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Ecosystem">Ecosystem</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#FLOSS">FLOSS</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#ForFree">For free</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#FOSS">FOSS</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#FreelyAvailable">Freely available</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Freeware">Freeware</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#GiveAwaySoftware">Give away software</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Google">Google</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Hacker">Hacker</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#IntellectualProperty">Intellectual property</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#InternetofThings">Internet of Things</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#LAMP">LAMP system</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Linux">Linux system</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Market">Market</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Modern">Modern</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Monetize">Monetize</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#MP3Player">MP3 player</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Open">Open</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#PC">PC</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Photoshop">Photoshop</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Piracy">Piracy</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#PowerPoint">PowerPoint</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Product">Product</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Protection">Protection</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#RAND">RAND</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#SaaS">SaaS</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#SellSoftware">Sell software</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#SharingPersonalData">Sharing (personal data)</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#SharingEconomy">Sharing economy</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Skype">Skype</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#SoftwareIndustry">Software Industry</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#SourceModel">Source model</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!--#if expr="$LANGUAGE_SUFFIX = /^.(es)$/" --> +<!-- TRANSLATORS: translate if this word is used often in your + language to refer to mobile computers; otherwise, + fill the translation with a space. --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->“<a + href="#Terminal">Terminal</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --><!--#endif + --><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Theft">Theft</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#TrustedComputing">Trusted Computing</a>” +|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a + href="#Vendor">Vendor</a>” +<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-STOP --></p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-START --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Ad-blocker">“Ad-blocker”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +When the purpose of some program is to block advertisements, +“ad-blocker” is a good term for it. However, the GNU +browser IceCat blocks advertisements that track the user as +consequence of broader measures to prevent surveillance by web sites. +This is not an “ad-blocker,” this is +<em>surveillance protection</em>.</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Access">“Access”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +It is a common misunderstanding to think free software means that the +public has “access” to a program. That is not what free +software means.</p> +<p> +The <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">criterion for free software</a> +is not about who has “access” to the program; the four +essential freedoms concern what a user that has a copy of the program +is allowed to do with it. For instance, freedom 2 says that that user +is free to make another copy and give or sell it to you. But no user +is <em>obligated</em> to do that for you; you do not have +a <em>right</em> to demand a copy of that program from any user.</p> +<p> +In particular, if you write a program yourself and never offer a copy +to anyone else, that program is free software albeit in a trivial way, +because every user that has a copy has the four essential freedoms +(since the only such user is you).</p> +<p> +In practice, when many users have copies of a program, someone is sure +to post it on the internet, giving everyone access to it. We think +people ought to do that, if the program is useful. But that isn't a +requirement of free software.</p> +<p> +There is one specific point in which a question of having access is +directly pertinent to free software: the GNU GPL permits giving a +particular user access to download a program's source code as a +substitute for physically giving that user a copy of the source. This +applies to the special case in which the user already has a copy of +the program in non-source form.</p> + +<blockquote><p>Instead of <b>with free software, +the public has access to the program</b>, +we say, <b>with free software, the users have the essential +freedoms</b> and <b>with free software, the users have control +of what the program does for them</b>.</p> +</blockquote> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Alternative">“Alternative”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +We don't describe free software as an “alternative” to +proprietary, because that word presumes all the “alternatives” are +legitimate and each additional one makes users better off. In effect, +it assumes that free software ought to coexist with software that does +not respect users' freedom.</p> +<p> +We believe that distribution as free software is the only ethical way +to make software available for others to use. The other methods, +<a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">nonfree +software</a> +and <a href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">Service +as a Software Substitute</a> subjugate their users. We do not think +it is good to offer users those “alternatives” to free +software. +</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Assets">“Assets”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +To refer to published works as “assets”, or “digital +assets”, is even worse than calling +them <a href="#Content">“content”</a> — it presumes +they have no value to society except commercial value.</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="BSD-style">“BSD-style”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +The expression “BSD-style license” leads to confusion because it +<a href="/licenses/bsd.html">lumps together licenses that have +important differences</a>. For instance, the original 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 <a href="/licenses/license-list.html"> the specific license in +question</a> and avoid the vague term “BSD-style.”</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Closed">“Closed”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +Describing nonfree software as “closed” clearly refers to +the term “open source.” In the free software movement, +<a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"> we do not want to +be confused with the open source camp</a>, 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 +<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware"> +“proprietary”</a>.</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="CloudComputing">“Cloud Computing”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p id="Cloud"> +The term “cloud computing” (or +just “cloud”, in the context of +computing) is a marketing buzzword with no coherent 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 spreads confusion. If you base +your thinking on it, your thinking will be confused (or, could we say, +“cloudy”?). +</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. What +scenario is the statement about? What is a good, clear term for that +scenario? Once the topic is clearly formulated, coherent thought +about it becomes possible. +</p> + +<p> +One of the many meanings of “cloud computing” is storing +your data in online services. In most scenarios, that is foolish +because it exposes you to +<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/25/hackers-spooks-cloud-antiauthoritarian-dream">surveillance</a>. +</p> + +<p> +Another meaning (which overlaps that but is not the same thing) +is <a href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html"> +Service as a Software Substitute</a>, which denies you control over +your computing. You should never use SaaSS. +</p> + +<p> +Another meaning is renting a remote physical server, or virtual server. +These practices are ok under certain circumstances. +</p> + +<p> +Another meaning is accessing your own server from your own mobile device. +That raises no particular ethical issues. +</p> + +<p> +The <a href="https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-145/final"> +NIST definition of "cloud computing"</a> mentions three scenarios that +raise different ethical issues: Software as a Service, Platform as a +Service, and Infrastructure as a Service. However, that definition +does not match the common use of “cloud computing”, since +it does not include storing data in online services. Software as a +Service as defined by NIST overlaps considerably with Service as a +Software Substitute, which mistreats the user, but the two concepts +are not equivalent. +</p> + +<p> +These different computing practices don't even belong in the same +discussion. The best way to avoid the confusion the term “cloud +computing” spreads is not to use the term “cloud” in +connection with computing. Talk about the scenario you mean, and call +it by a specific term. +</p> + +<p> +Curiously, Larry Ellison, a proprietary software developer, +also <a href="http://www.cnet.com/news/oracles-ellison-nails-cloud-computing/"> +noted the vacuity of the term “cloud computing.”</a> He +decided to use the term anyway because, as a proprietary software +developer, he isn't motivated by the same ideals as we are. +</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Commercial">“Commercial”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<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> +<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> + + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Compensation">“Compensation”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<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 +<a href="/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html">false</a>, and +the second is outrageous. +</p> +<p> +“Compensating the rights-holders” adds a further swindle: +you're supposed to imagine that means paying the authors, and +occasionally it does, but most of the time it means a subsidy for the +same publishing companies that are pushing unjust laws on us. +</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Consume">“Consume”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +“Consume” refers to what we do with food: we ingest it, +after which the food as such no longer exists. By analogy, we employ +the same word for other products whose use <em>uses them up</em>. +Applying it to durable goods, such as clothing or appliances, is a +stretch. Applying it to published works (programs, recordings on a +disk or in a file, books on paper or in a file), whose nature is to +last indefinitely and which can be run, played or read any number of +times, is stretching the word so far that it snaps. Playing a +recording, or running a program, does not consume it.</p> + +<p> +Those who use “consume” in this context will say they +don't mean it literally. What, then, does it mean? It means to regard +copies of software and other works from a narrow economistic point of +view. “Consume” is associated with the economics of +material commodities, such as the fuel or electricity that a car uses +up. Gasoline is a commodity, and so is electricity. Commodities +are <em>fungible</em>: there is nothing special about a drop of +gasoline that your car burns today versus another drop that it burned +last week.</p> + +<p>What does it mean to think of works of authorship as a commodity, +with the assumption that there is nothing special about any one story, +article, program, or song? That is the twisted viewpoint of the owner +or the accountant of a publishing company. It is no surprise that +proprietary software would like you to think of the use of software as +a commodity. Their twisted viewpoint comes through clearly +in <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/former-google-exec-launches-sourcepoint-with-10-million-series-a-funding-2015-6">this +article</a>, which also refers to publications as +“<a href="#Content">content</a>.”</p> + +<p> +The narrow thinking associated with the idea that we “consume +content” paves the way for laws such as the DMCA that forbid +users to break the <a href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org/">Digital +Restrictions Management</a> (DRM) facilities in digital devices. If +users think what they do with these devices is “consume,” +they may see such restrictions as natural.</p> + +<p> +It also encourages the acceptance of “streaming” services, +which use DRM to perversely limit listening to music, or watching +video, to squeeze those activities into the assumptions of the word +“consume.”</p> + +<p> +Why is this perverse usage spreading? Some may feel that the term +sounds sophisticated, but rejecting it with cogent reasons can appear +even more sophisticated. Some want to generalize about all kinds of +media, but the usual English verbs (“read,” “listen +to,” “watch”) don't do this. Others may be acting +from business interests (their own, or their employers'). Their use +of the term in prestigious forums gives the impression that it's the +“correct” term.</p> + +<p> +To speak of “consuming” music, fiction, or any other +artistic works is to treat them as commodities rather than as art. Do +we want to think of published works that way? Do we want to encourage +the public to do so?</p> + +<p>Those who answer no, please join me in shunning the term +“consume” for this.</p> + +<p>What to use instead? You can use specific verbs such as +“read,” “listen to,” “watch” or +“look at,” since they help to restrain the tendency to +overgeneralize.</p> + +<p>If you insist on generalizing, you can use the expression +“attend to,” which requires less of a stretch than +“consume.” For a work meant for practical use, +“use” is best.</p> + +<p>See also the following entry.</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Consumer">“Consumer”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +The term “consumer,” when used to refer to the users of +computing, is loaded with assumptions we should reject. Some come +from the idea that using the program “consumes” the program (see +<a href="#Consume">the previous entry</a>), which leads people to +impose on copiable digital works the economic conclusions that were +drawn about uncopiable material products.</p> +<p> +In addition, describing the users of software as +“consumers” refers to a framing in which people are +limited to selecting between whatever “products” are +available in the “market.” There is no room in this +framing for the idea that users +can <a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">directly +exercise control over what a program does</a>.</p> +<p> +To describe people who are not limited to passive use of works, we +suggest terms such as “individuals” and +“citizens,” rather than “consumers.”</p> +<p> +This problem with the word “consumer” has +been <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/11/capitalism-language-raymond-williams">noted before</a>. +</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Content">“Content”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<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 publications and works of authorship adopts an +attitude you might rather avoid: it treats them as a +commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and make money. In effect, +it disparages the works themselves. If you don't agree with that +attitude, you can call them “works” or “publications.” +</p> +<p> +Those who use the term “content” 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. This was also recognized by Tom Chatfield +<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/aug/02/how-to-deal-with-trump-trolls-online">in the Guardian</a>:</p> + +<blockquote><p> +Content itself is beside the point—as the very use of words like +content suggests. The moment you start labelling every single piece of +writing in the world “content,” you have conceded its +interchangeability: its primary purpose as mere grist to the metrical +mill. +</p></blockquote> + +<p> +In other words, “content” reduces publications and +writings to a sort of pap fit to be piped through the +“tubes” of the internet. +</p> + +<p>See also <a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/">Courtney +Love's open letter to Steve Case</a> and search for “content +provider” in that page. Alas, Ms. Love is unaware that the term +“intellectual property” is +also <a href="#IntellectualProperty"> biased and confusing</a>.</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> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="CopyrightOwner">“Copyright Owner”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +Copyright is an artificial privilege, handed out by the state to +achieve a public interest and lasting a period of time — not a +natural right like owning a house or a shirt. Lawyers used to +recognize this by referring to the recipient of that privilege as a +“copyright holder.”</p> + +<p>A few decades ago, copyright holders began trying to reduce +awareness of this point. In addition to citing frequently the bogus +concept of <a href="#IntellectualProperty">“intellectual +property,”</a> they also started calling themselves +“copyright owners.” Please join us in resisting by using +the traditional term “copyright holders” instead.</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="CreativeCommonsLicensed">“Creative Commons licensed”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +The most important licensing characteristic of a work is whether it is +free. Creative Commons publishes seven licenses; three are free +(CC BY, CC BY-SA and CC0) and the rest are nonfree. Thus, to +describe a work as “Creative Commons licensed” fails to +say whether it is free, and suggests that the question is not +important. The statement may be accurate, but the omission is +harmful. +</p> + +<p> +To encourage people to pay attention to the most important +distinction, always specify <em>which</em> Creative Commons license is +used, as in “licensed under CC BY-SA.” If you don't know +which license a certain work uses, find out and then make your +statement. +</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Creator">“Creator”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<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. These two +terms are not equivalent: often the copyright holder is not the +author.</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="DigitalGoods">“Digital Goods”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +The term “digital goods,” as applied to copies of works of +authorship, identifies them with physical goods—which cannot be +copied, and which therefore have to be manufactured in quantity and +sold. This metaphor encourages people to judge issues about software +or other digital works based on their views and intuitions about +physical goods. It also frames issues in terms of economics, whose +shallow and limited values don't include freedom and community.</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="DigitalLocks">“Digital Locks”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +“Digital locks” is used to refer to Digital Restrictions +Management by some who criticize it. The problem with this term is +that it fails to do justice to the badness of DRM. The people who +adopted that term did not think it through.</p> +<p> +Locks are not necessarily oppressive or bad. You probably own several +locks, and their keys or codes as well; you may find them useful or +troublesome, but they don't oppress you, because you can open and +close them. Likewise, we +find <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/01/encryption-wont-work-if-it-has-a-back-door-only-the-good-guys-have-keys-to-">encryption</a> +invaluable for protecting our digital files. That too is a kind +of digital lock that you have control over.</p> +<p> +DRM is like a lock placed on you by someone else, who refuses to give +you the key—in other words, like <em>handcuffs</em>. Therefore, +the proper metaphor for DRM is “digital handcuffs,” not +“digital locks.”</p> +<p> +A number of opposition campaigns have chosen the unwise term +“digital locks”; to get things back on the right track, we +must firmly insist on correcting this mistake. The FSF can support a +campaign that opposes “digital locks” if we agree on the +substance; however, when we state our support, we conspicuously +replace the term with “digital handcuffs” and say why.</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="DigitalRightsManagement">“Digital Rights Management”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +“Digital Rights Management” (abbreviated +“DRM”) refers to technical mechanisms 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> +<p> +Please sign up to support our <a href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org/"> +campaign to abolish DRM</a>.</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Ecosystem">“Ecosystem”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +It is inadvisable 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 understand what <em>does</em> happen. In an ecosystem, +some organisms consume other organisms. In ecology, we do not ask +whether it is right for an owl to eat a mouse or for a mouse to eat a +seed, 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, even if it goes so far as the +extinction of a species.</p> + +<p> +By contrast, beings that adopt an ethical stance towards their +surroundings can decide to preserve things that, without their +intervention, might vanish—such as civil society, democracy, +human rights, peace, public health, a stable climate, clean air and +water, endangered species, traditional arts…and computer users' +freedom. +</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="FLOSS">“FLOSS”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +The term “FLOSS,” meaning “Free/Libre and Open +Source Software,” was coined as a way +to <a href="/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html">be neutral between free +software and open source</a>. If neutrality is your goal, +“FLOSS” is the best way to be neutral. But if you want to +show you stand for freedom, don't use a neutral term.</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="ForFree">“For free”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<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> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="FOSS">“FOSS”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +The term “FOSS,” meaning “Free and Open Source +Software,” was coined as a way +to <a href="/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html">be neutral between free +software and open source</a>, but it doesn't really do that. If +neutrality is your goal, “FLOSS” is better. But if you +want to show you stand for freedom, don't use a neutral term.</p> + +<blockquote><p>Instead of <b>FOSS</b>, +we say, <b>free software</b> or <b>free (libre) software</b>.</p> +</blockquote> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="FreelyAvailable">“Freely available”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<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> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Freeware">“Freeware”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<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 +<a href="/philosophy/fs-translations.html">your language</a>.</p> + +<p> +By using a word in <a href="/philosophy/fs-translations.html">your +own language</a>, 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> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="GiveAwaySoftware">“Give away software”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<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> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Google">“Google”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +Please avoid using the term “google” as a verb, meaning to +search for something on the internet. “Google” is just the +name of one particular search engine among others. We suggest to use +the term “search the web” or (in some contexts) just +“search”. Try to use a search engine that respects your +privacy; for instance, <a href="https://duckduckgo.com/">DuckDuckGo</a> +claims not to track its users. (There is no way for outsiders to +verify claims of that kind.)</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Hacker">“Hacker”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +A hacker is someone +who <a href="http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html"> enjoys +playful cleverness</a>—not necessarily with computers. The +programmers in the old +<abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr> 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> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="IntellectualProperty">“Intellectual property”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<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 <a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html"> not to speak or even +think in terms of “intellectual property”</a>.</p> +<p> +The hypocrisy of calling these powers “rights” is +<a href="/philosophy/wipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html"> +starting to make the World “Intellectual Property” +Organization embarrassed</a>.</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="InternetofThings">“Internet of Things”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +When companies decided to make computerized appliances that would +connect over the internet to the manufacturer's server, and therefore +could easily snoop on their users, they realized that this would not +sound very nice. So they came up with a cute, appealing name: the +“Internet of Things.”</p> +<p> +Experience shows that these products often do +<a +href="http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2015/09/cory-doctorow-what-if-people-were-sensors-not-things-to-be-sensed/"> +spy on their users</a>. They are also tailor-made for +<a href="http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/rinesi20150806">giving +people biased advice</a>. In addition, the manufacturer can <a +href="/proprietary/proprietary-sabotage.html"> sabotage the +product</a> by turning off the server it depends on.</p> +<p> +We call them the “Internet of Stings.” +</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="LAMP">“LAMP system”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<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 “GLAMP”: “GNU, Linux, Apache, MySQL and +PHP.” +</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Linux">“Linux system”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<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 <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html"> GNU/Linux</a>, both to give +the GNU Project credit and to distinguish the whole system from the +kernel alone. +</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Market">“Market”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<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's +efforts for mere success is to deny the importance of freedom +and legitimize proprietary software.</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Modern">“Modern”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +The term “modern” makes sense from a descriptive +perspective — for instance, solely to distinguish newer periods +and ways from older ones.</p> + +<p>It becomes a problem when it carries the presumption that older +ways are “old-fashioned”; that is, presumed to be worse. In +technological fields where businesses make the choices and impose +them on users, the reverse is often true.</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Monetize">“Monetize”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +The proper definition of “monetize” is “to use +something as currency.” For instance, human societies have +monetized gold, silver, copper, printed paper, special kinds of +seashells, and large rocks. However, we now see a tendency to use the +word in another way, meaning “to use something as a basis for +profit”.</p> +<p> +That usage casts the profit as primary, and the thing used to get the +profit as secondary. That attitude applied to a software project is +objectionable because it would lead the developers to make the program +proprietary, if they conclude that making it free/libre isn't +sufficiently profitable.</p> +<p> +A productive and ethical business can make money, but if it +subordinates all else to profit, it is not likely to remain +ethical.</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="MP3Player">“MP3 Player”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +<!-- The MP3 patents will reportedly expire by 2018. --> + +In the late 1990s it became feasible to make portable, solid-state +digital audio players. Most players supported the patented MP3 codec, +and that is still the case. Some players also supported the +patent-free audio codecs Ogg Vorbis and FLAC, and a few couldn't play +MP3-encoded files at all because their developers needed to protect +themselves from the patents on MP3 format.</p> + +<p>Using the term “MP3 players” for audio players in +general has the effect of promoting the MP3 format and discouraging +the other formats (some of which are technically superior as well). +Even though the MP3 patents have expired, it is still undesirable to +do that.</p> + +<p>We suggest the term “digital audio player,” or simply +“audio player” when that's clear enough, instead of +“MP3 player.”</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Open">“Open”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +Please avoid using the term “open” or “open +source” as a substitute for “free software.” Those terms +refer to a <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"> +different set of views</a> based on different values. The free software +movement campaigns for your freedom in your computing, as a matter +of justice. The open source non-movement does not campaign for anything +in this way.</p> + +<p>When referring to the open source views, it's correct to use that +name, but please do not use that term when talking about us, our +software, or our views—that leads people to suppose our views +are similar to theirs.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>Instead of <b>open source</b>, +we say, <b>free software</b> or <b>free (libre) software</b>.</p> +</blockquote> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="PC">“PC”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<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 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> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Photoshop">“Photoshop”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<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 programs +for editing images, such as the <a href="/software/gimp">GIMP</a>.</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Piracy">“Piracy”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<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> + +<p> +A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement, +recognized that +<a href="http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129/">“piracy” +and “theft” are smear words.</a></p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="PowerPoint">“PowerPoint”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<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. For your +freedom's sake, you should use only free software to make your +presentations—which means, <em>not PowerPoint</em>. Recommended +options include LaTeX's <code>beamer</code> class and LibreOffice +Impress.</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Product">“Product”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +If you're talking about a product, by all means call it that. +However, when referring to a service, please do not call it a +“product.” If a service provider calls the service a +“product,” please firmly insist on calling it a +“service.” If a service provider calls a package deal a +“product,” please firmly insist on calling it a +“deal.” +</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Protection">“Protection”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<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> +Likewise, instead of saying, “protected by copyright,” you +can say, “covered by copyright” or just +“copyrighted.”</p> +<p> +If you want to criticize copyright rather than be neutral, 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 +<a href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org"> Defective by Design</a> +campaign.</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="RAND">“RAND (Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory)”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<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> +<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> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="SaaS">“SaaS” or “Software as a Service”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +We used to say that SaaS (short for “Software as a +Service”) is an injustice, but then we found that there was a +lot of variation in people's understanding of which activities count +as SaaS. So we switched to a new term, “Service as a Software +Substitute” or “SaaSS.” This term has two +advantages: it wasn't used before, so our definition is the only one, +and it explains what the injustice consists of.</p> +<p> +See <a href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">Who +Does That Server Really Serve?</a> for discussion of this +issue.</p> +<p> +In Spanish we continue to use the term “software como +servicio” because the joke of “software como ser +vicio” (“software, as being pernicious”) is too good +to give up.</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="SellSoftware">“Sell software”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +The term “sell software” is ambiguous. Strictly speaking, +exchanging a copy of a free program for a sum of money +is <a href="/philosophy/selling.html"> selling the program</a>, and +there is nothing wrong with doing that. However, people usually +associate the term “selling software” with proprietary +restrictions on the subsequent use of the software. You can be clear, +and prevent confusion, by saying either “distributing copies of +a program for a fee” or “imposing proprietary restrictions +on the use of a program.”</p> +<p> +See <a href="/philosophy/selling.html">Selling Free Software</a> for +further discussion of this issue.</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="SharingPersonalData">“Sharing (personal data)”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +When companies manipulate or lure people into revealing personal data +and thus ceding their privacy, please don't refer to this as +“sharing.” We use the term “sharing” to refer +to noncommercial cooperation, including noncommercial redistribution +of exact copies of published works, and we say this is <em>good</em>. +Please don't apply that word to a practice which is harmful and dangerous.</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="SharingEconomy">“Sharing economy”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +The term “sharing economy” is not a good way to refer to +services such as Uber and Airbnb that arrange business transactions +between people. We use the term “sharing” to refer to +noncommercial cooperation, including noncommercial redistribution of +exact copies of published works. Stretching the word +“sharing” to include these transactions undermines its +meaning, so we don't use it in this context.</p> +<p> +A more suitable term for businesses like Uber is the +“piecework service economy.”</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Skype">“Skype”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +Please avoid using the term “skype” as a verb, meaning any +kind of video communication or telephony over the Internet in general. +“Skype” is just the name of one particular proprietary +program, one that <a +href="/philosophy/proprietary/proprietary-surveillance.html#SpywareInSkype"> +spies on its users</a>. If you want to make video and voice calls over the +Internet in a way that respects both your freedom and your privacy, try +one of the <a href="https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:Skype_Replacement"> +numerous free Skype replacements</a>.</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="SoftwareIndustry">“Software Industry”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<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. <a +href="https://web.archive.org/web/20071215073111/http://eupat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/" +title="archived version of http://eupat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/">The +European Parliament, rejecting software patents in 2003, voted to +define “industry” as “automated production of +material goods.”</a></p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="SourceModel">“Source model”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +Wikipedia uses the term “source model” in a confused and +ambiguous way. Ostensibly it refers to how a program's source is +distributed, but the text confuses this with the development +methodology. It distinguishes “open source” and +”shared source” as answers, but they overlap — +Microsoft uses the latter as a marketing term to cover a range of +practices, some of which are “open source”. Thus, this +term really conveys no coherent information, but it provides an +opportunity to say “open source” in pages describing free +software programs.</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!--#if expr="$LANGUAGE_SUFFIX = /^.(es)$/" --> +<!-- TRANSLATORS: translate if this word is used often in your + language to refer to mobile computers; otherwise, + fill the translation with a space. --> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Terminal">“Terminal”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> + +<p>Mobile phones and tablets are computers, and people should be +able to do their computing on them using free software. +To call them “terminals” supposes that all they are good for +is to connect to servers, which is a bad way to do your own computing.</p> +<!--#endif --> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Theft">“Theft”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +The supporters of a too-strict, repressive form of copyright often use +words like “stolen” and “theft” to refer to +copyright infringement. This is spin, but they would like you to take +it for objective truth.</p> +<p> +Under the US legal system, copyright infringement is not theft. +<a +href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=473&invol=207"> +Laws about theft are not applicable to copyright infringement.</a> +The supporters of repressive copyright are making an appeal to +authority—and misrepresenting what authority says.</p> +<p> +To refute them, you can point to this +<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/04/harper-lee-kill-mockingbird-copyright"> +real case</a> which shows what can properly be described as +“copyright theft.”</p> +<p> +Unauthorized copying is forbidden by copyright law in many +circumstances (not all!), but being forbidden doesn't make it wrong. +In general, laws don't define right and wrong. Laws, at their best, +attempt to implement justice. If the laws (the implementation) don't +fit our ideas of right and wrong (the spec), the laws are what should +change.</p> + +<p> +A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement, +recognized that +<a href="http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129/">“piracy” +and “theft” are smear-words.</a></p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="TrustedComputing">“Trusted Computing”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<p> +<a href="/philosophy/can-you-trust.html">“Trusted computing”</a> is +the proponents' name for a scheme to redesign computers so that +application 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 “treacherous.” +</p> + +<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --> +<h3 id="Vendor">“Vendor”</h3> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> +<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 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> +<!-- GNUN-SORT-STOP --> + +<hr /> +<blockquote id="fsfs"><p class="big">This essay is published +in <a href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free +Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard +M. Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote> + +</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> +<div id="footer"> +<div class="unprintable"> + +<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. +There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> +the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent +to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> + +<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, + replace it with the translation of these two: + + We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality + translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. + Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard + to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> + + <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + our web pages, see <a + href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations + README</a>. --> +Please see the <a +href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations +README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations +of this article.</p> +</div> + +<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to + files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should + be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this + without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. + Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the + document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the + document was modified, or published. + + If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. + Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying + years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable + year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including + being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). + + There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers + Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> + +<p>Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, +2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p> + +<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" +href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative +Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2020/07/07 11:37:52 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> +</body> +</html> |