summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/words-to-avoid.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/words-to-avoid.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/words-to-avoid.html1419
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 --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Ad-blocker">Ad-blocker</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Access">Access</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Alternative">Alternative</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Assets">Assets</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#BSD-style">BSD-style</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Closed">Closed</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#CloudComputing">Cloud Computing</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Commercial">Commercial</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Compensation">Compensation</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Consume">Consume</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Consumer">Consumer</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Content">Content</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#CopyrightOwner">Copyright Owner</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#CreativeCommonsLicensed">Creative Commons licensed</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Creator">Creator</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#DigitalGoods">Digital Goods</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#DigitalLocks">Digital Locks</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#DigitalRightsManagement">Digital Rights Management</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Ecosystem">Ecosystem</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#FLOSS">FLOSS</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#ForFree">For free</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#FOSS">FOSS</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#FreelyAvailable">Freely available</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Freeware">Freeware</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#GiveAwaySoftware">Give away software</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Google">Google</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Hacker">Hacker</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#IntellectualProperty">Intellectual property</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#InternetofThings">Internet of Things</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#LAMP">LAMP system</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Linux">Linux system</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Market">Market</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Modern">Modern</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Monetize">Monetize</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#MP3Player">MP3 player</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Open">Open</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#PC">PC</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Photoshop">Photoshop</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Piracy">Piracy</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#PowerPoint">PowerPoint</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Product">Product</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Protection">Protection</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#RAND">RAND</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#SaaS">SaaS</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#SellSoftware">Sell software</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#SharingPersonalData">Sharing (personal data)</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#SharingEconomy">Sharing economy</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Skype">Skype</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#SoftwareIndustry">Software Industry</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#SourceModel">Source model</a>&rdquo;
+|<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 -->&ldquo;<a
+ href="#Terminal">Terminal</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --><!--#endif
+ --><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Theft">Theft</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#TrustedComputing">Trusted Computing</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> &ldquo;<a
+ href="#Vendor">Vendor</a>&rdquo;
+<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-STOP --></p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-START -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Ad-blocker">&ldquo;Ad-blocker&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+When the purpose of some program is to block advertisements,
+&ldquo;ad-blocker&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;ad-blocker,&rdquo; this is
+<em>surveillance protection</em>.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Access">&ldquo;Access&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+It is a common misunderstanding to think free software means that the
+public has &ldquo;access&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;access&rdquo; 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">&ldquo;Alternative&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+We don't describe free software as an &ldquo;alternative&rdquo; to
+proprietary, because that word presumes all the &ldquo;alternatives&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;alternatives&rdquo; to free
+software.
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Assets">&ldquo;Assets&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+To refer to published works as &ldquo;assets&rdquo;, or &ldquo;digital
+assets&rdquo;, is even worse than calling
+them <a href="#Content">&ldquo;content&rdquo;</a> &mdash; it presumes
+they have no value to society except commercial value.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="BSD-style">&ldquo;BSD-style&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The expression &ldquo;BSD-style license&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;BSD-style.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Closed">&ldquo;Closed&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Describing nonfree software as &ldquo;closed&rdquo; clearly refers to
+the term &ldquo;open source.&rdquo; 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
+&ldquo;closed.&rdquo; We call it &ldquo;nonfree&rdquo; or
+<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">
+&ldquo;proprietary&rdquo;</a>.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="CloudComputing">&ldquo;Cloud Computing&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p id="Cloud">
+The term &ldquo;cloud computing&rdquo; (or
+just &ldquo;cloud&rdquo;, 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,
+&ldquo;cloudy&rdquo;?).
+</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 &ldquo;cloud computing&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;cloud computing&rdquo;, 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 &ldquo;cloud
+computing&rdquo; spreads is not to use the term &ldquo;cloud&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;cloud computing.&rdquo;</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">&ldquo;Commercial&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Please don't use &ldquo;commercial&rdquo; as a synonym for
+&ldquo;nonfree.&rdquo; 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&mdash;what sort of entity developed
+the program and what freedom its users have&mdash;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
+&ldquo;commercial&rdquo; means &ldquo;nonfree&rdquo; will tend to
+think that the &ldquo;free commercial&rdquo; combination is
+self-contradictory, and dismiss the possibility. Let's be careful not
+to use the word &ldquo;commercial&rdquo; in that way.</p>
+
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Compensation">&ldquo;Compensation&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+To speak of &ldquo;compensation for authors&rdquo; 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>
+&ldquo;Compensating the rights-holders&rdquo; 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">&ldquo;Consume&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+&ldquo;Consume&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;consume&rdquo; 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. &ldquo;Consume&rdquo; 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
+&ldquo;<a href="#Content">content</a>.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>
+The narrow thinking associated with the idea that we &ldquo;consume
+content&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;consume,&rdquo;
+they may see such restrictions as natural.</p>
+
+<p>
+It also encourages the acceptance of &ldquo;streaming&rdquo; services,
+which use DRM to perversely limit listening to music, or watching
+video, to squeeze those activities into the assumptions of the word
+&ldquo;consume.&rdquo;</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 (&ldquo;read,&rdquo; &ldquo;listen
+to,&rdquo; &ldquo;watch&rdquo;) 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
+&ldquo;correct&rdquo; term.</p>
+
+<p>
+To speak of &ldquo;consuming&rdquo; 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
+&ldquo;consume&rdquo; for this.</p>
+
+<p>What to use instead? You can use specific verbs such as
+&ldquo;read,&rdquo; &ldquo;listen to,&rdquo; &ldquo;watch&rdquo; or
+&ldquo;look at,&rdquo; since they help to restrain the tendency to
+overgeneralize.</p>
+
+<p>If you insist on generalizing, you can use the expression
+&ldquo;attend to,&rdquo; which requires less of a stretch than
+&ldquo;consume.&rdquo; For a work meant for practical use,
+&ldquo;use&rdquo; is best.</p>
+
+<p>See also the following entry.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Consumer">&ldquo;Consumer&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The term &ldquo;consumer,&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;consumes&rdquo; 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
+&ldquo;consumers&rdquo; refers to a framing in which people are
+limited to selecting between whatever &ldquo;products&rdquo; are
+available in the &ldquo;market.&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;individuals&rdquo; and
+&ldquo;citizens,&rdquo; rather than &ldquo;consumers.&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+This problem with the word &ldquo;consumer&rdquo; 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">&ldquo;Content&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+If you want to describe a feeling of comfort and satisfaction, by all
+means say you are &ldquo;content,&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;works&rdquo; or &ldquo;publications.&rdquo;
+</p>
+<p>
+Those who use the term &ldquo;content&rdquo; are often the publishers
+that push for increased copyright power in the name of the authors
+(&ldquo;creators,&rdquo; as they say) of the works. The term
+&ldquo;content&rdquo; 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&mdash;as the very use of words like
+content suggests. The moment you start labelling every single piece of
+writing in the world &ldquo;content,&rdquo; you have conceded its
+interchangeability: its primary purpose as mere grist to the metrical
+mill.
+</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>
+In other words, &ldquo;content&rdquo; reduces publications and
+writings to a sort of pap fit to be piped through the
+&ldquo;tubes&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;content
+provider&rdquo; in that page. Alas, Ms. Love is unaware that the term
+&ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; is
+also <a href="#IntellectualProperty"> biased and confusing</a>.</p>
+<p>
+However, as long as other people use the term &ldquo;content
+provider,&rdquo; political dissidents can well call themselves
+&ldquo;malcontent providers.&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+The term &ldquo;content management&rdquo; takes the prize for vacuity.
+&ldquo;Content&rdquo; means &ldquo;some sort of information,&rdquo;
+and &ldquo;management&rdquo; in this context means &ldquo;doing
+something with it.&rdquo; So a &ldquo;content management
+system&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;web site revision
+system&rdquo; (WRS).</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="CopyrightOwner">&ldquo;Copyright Owner&rdquo;</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 &mdash; 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
+&ldquo;copyright holder.&rdquo;</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">&ldquo;intellectual
+property,&rdquo;</a> they also started calling themselves
+&ldquo;copyright owners.&rdquo; Please join us in resisting by using
+the traditional term &ldquo;copyright holders&rdquo; instead.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="CreativeCommonsLicensed">&ldquo;Creative Commons licensed&rdquo;</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 &ldquo;Creative Commons licensed&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;licensed under CC BY-SA.&rdquo; 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">&ldquo;Creator&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The term &ldquo;creator&rdquo; as applied to authors implicitly
+compares them to a deity (&ldquo;the creator&rdquo;). 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 &ldquo;author&rdquo; instead. However, in many cases
+&ldquo;copyright holder&rdquo; 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">&ldquo;Digital Goods&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The term &ldquo;digital goods,&rdquo; as applied to copies of works of
+authorship, identifies them with physical goods&mdash;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">&ldquo;Digital Locks&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+&ldquo;Digital locks&rdquo; 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&mdash;in other words, like <em>handcuffs</em>. Therefore,
+the proper metaphor for DRM is &ldquo;digital handcuffs,&rdquo; not
+&ldquo;digital locks.&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+A number of opposition campaigns have chosen the unwise term
+&ldquo;digital locks&rdquo;; to get things back on the right track, we
+must firmly insist on correcting this mistake. The FSF can support a
+campaign that opposes &ldquo;digital locks&rdquo; if we agree on the
+substance; however, when we state our support, we conspicuously
+replace the term with &ldquo;digital handcuffs&rdquo; and say why.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="DigitalRightsManagement">&ldquo;Digital Rights Management&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+&ldquo;Digital Rights Management&rdquo; (abbreviated
+&ldquo;DRM&rdquo;) refers to technical mechanisms designed to impose
+restrictions on computer users. The use of the word
+&ldquo;rights&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;Digital Restrictions
+Management,&rdquo; and &ldquo;digital handcuffs.&rdquo;</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">&ldquo;Ecosystem&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+It is inadvisable to describe the free software community, or any human
+community, as an &ldquo;ecosystem,&rdquo; because that word implies
+the absence of ethical judgment.</p>
+
+<p>
+The term &ldquo;ecosystem&rdquo; 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&mdash;such as civil society, democracy,
+human rights, peace, public health, a stable climate, clean air and
+water, endangered species, traditional arts&hellip;and computer users'
+freedom.
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="FLOSS">&ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The term &ldquo;FLOSS,&rdquo; meaning &ldquo;Free/Libre and Open
+Source Software,&rdquo; 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,
+&ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; 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">&ldquo;For free&rdquo;</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 &ldquo;for free.&rdquo; That term specifically
+means &ldquo;for zero price.&rdquo; Free software is a matter of
+freedom, not price.</p>
+<p>
+Free software copies are often available for free&mdash;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
+&ldquo;as free software.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="FOSS">&ldquo;FOSS&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The term &ldquo;FOSS,&rdquo; meaning &ldquo;Free and Open Source
+Software,&rdquo; 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, &ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; 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">&ldquo;Freely available&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Don't use &ldquo;freely available software&rdquo; as a synonym for &ldquo;free
+software.&rdquo; The terms are not equivalent. Software is &ldquo;freely
+available&rdquo; if anyone can easily get a copy. &ldquo;Free
+software&rdquo; 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">&ldquo;Freeware&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Please don't use the term &ldquo;freeware&rdquo; as a synonym for
+&ldquo;free software.&rdquo; The term &ldquo;freeware&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;free software&rdquo; or
+&ldquo;freeware.&rdquo; It is better to translate the term &ldquo;free
+software&rdquo; 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">&ldquo;Give away software&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+It's misleading to use the term &ldquo;give away&rdquo; to mean
+&ldquo;distribute a program as free software.&rdquo;
+This locution has the same
+problem as &ldquo;for free&rdquo;: it implies the issue is price, not
+freedom. One way to avoid the confusion is to say &ldquo;release as
+free software.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Google">&ldquo;Google&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Please avoid using the term &ldquo;google&rdquo; as a verb, meaning to
+search for something on the internet. &ldquo;Google&rdquo; is just the
+name of one particular search engine among others. We suggest to use
+the term &ldquo;search the web&rdquo; or (in some contexts) just
+&ldquo;search&rdquo;. 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">&ldquo;Hacker&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+A hacker is someone
+who <a href="http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html"> enjoys
+playful cleverness</a>&mdash;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 &ldquo;security breaker.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>
+Please don't spread this mistake.
+People who break security are &ldquo;crackers.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="IntellectualProperty">&ldquo;Intellectual property&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as
+&ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;&mdash;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
+&ldquo;copyright,&rdquo; or about &ldquo;patents,&rdquo; or about
+&ldquo;trademarks.&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+The term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; carries a hidden
+assumption&mdash;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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;</a>.</p>
+<p>
+The hypocrisy of calling these powers &ldquo;rights&rdquo; is
+<a href="/philosophy/wipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html">
+starting to make the World &ldquo;Intellectual Property&rdquo;
+Organization embarrassed</a>.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="InternetofThings">&ldquo;Internet of Things&rdquo;</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
+&ldquo;Internet of Things.&rdquo;</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 &ldquo;Internet of Stings.&rdquo;
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="LAMP">&ldquo;LAMP system&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+&ldquo;LAMP&rdquo; stands for &ldquo;Linux, Apache, MySQL and
+PHP&rdquo;&mdash;a common combination of software to use on a web
+server, except that &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; in this context really refers
+to the GNU/Linux system. So instead of &ldquo;LAMP&rdquo; it should
+be &ldquo;GLAMP&rdquo;: &ldquo;GNU, Linux, Apache, MySQL and
+PHP.&rdquo;
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Linux">&ldquo;Linux system&rdquo;</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 &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; 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">&ldquo;Market&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the
+software users in general, as a &ldquo;market.&rdquo;</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&mdash;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">&ldquo;Modern&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The term &ldquo;modern&rdquo; makes sense from a descriptive
+perspective &mdash; 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 &ldquo;old-fashioned&rdquo;; 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">&ldquo;Monetize&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The proper definition of &ldquo;monetize&rdquo; is &ldquo;to use
+something as currency.&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;to use something as a basis for
+profit&rdquo;.</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">&ldquo;MP3 Player&rdquo;</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 &ldquo;MP3 players&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;digital audio player,&rdquo; or simply
+&ldquo;audio player&rdquo; when that's clear enough, instead of
+&ldquo;MP3 player.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Open">&ldquo;Open&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Please avoid using the term &ldquo;open&rdquo; or &ldquo;open
+source&rdquo; as a substitute for &ldquo;free software.&rdquo; 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&mdash;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">&ldquo;PC&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+It's OK to use the abbreviation &ldquo;PC&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;WC&rdquo; has been suggested for a computer running
+Windows.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Photoshop">&ldquo;Photoshop&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Please avoid using the term &ldquo;photoshop&rdquo; 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">&ldquo;Piracy&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as
+&ldquo;piracy.&rdquo; 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
+&ldquo;piracy&rdquo; to describe it. Neutral terms such as
+&ldquo;unauthorized copying&rdquo; (or &ldquo;prohibited
+copying&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;sharing information with your neighbor.&rdquo;</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/">&ldquo;piracy&rdquo;
+and &ldquo;theft&rdquo; are smear words.</a></p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="PowerPoint">&ldquo;PowerPoint&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Please avoid using the term &ldquo;PowerPoint&rdquo; to mean any kind
+of slide presentation. &ldquo;PowerPoint&rdquo; 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&mdash;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">&ldquo;Product&rdquo;</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
+&ldquo;product.&rdquo; If a service provider calls the service a
+&ldquo;product,&rdquo; please firmly insist on calling it a
+&ldquo;service.&rdquo; If a service provider calls a package deal a
+&ldquo;product,&rdquo; please firmly insist on calling it a
+&ldquo;deal.&rdquo;
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Protection">&ldquo;Protection&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Publishers' lawyers love to use the term &ldquo;protection&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;protection&rdquo; and use neutral terms
+instead. For example, instead of saying, &ldquo;Copyright protection lasts a
+very long time,&rdquo; you can say, &ldquo;Copyright lasts a very long
+time.&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+Likewise, instead of saying, &ldquo;protected by copyright,&rdquo; you
+can say, &ldquo;covered by copyright&rdquo; or just
+&ldquo;copyrighted.&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+If you want to criticize copyright rather than be neutral, you can
+use the term &ldquo;copyright restrictions.&rdquo; Thus, you can say,
+&ldquo;Copyright restrictions last a very long time.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>
+The term &ldquo;protection&rdquo; is also used to describe malicious
+features. For instance, &ldquo;copy protection&rdquo; is a feature
+that interferes with copying. From the user's point of view, this is
+obstruction. So we could call that malicious feature &ldquo;copy
+obstruction.&rdquo; More often it is called Digital Restrictions
+Management (DRM)&mdash;see the
+<a href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org"> Defective by Design</a>
+campaign.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="RAND">&ldquo;RAND (Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory)&rdquo;</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 &ldquo;RAND,&rdquo;
+which stands for &ldquo;reasonable and non-discriminatory.&rdquo;</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 &ldquo;RAND&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;reasonable and
+non-discriminatory&rdquo; or &ldquo;RAND&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;uniform fee only,&rdquo; or
+&ldquo;UFO&rdquo; 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">&ldquo;SaaS&rdquo; or &ldquo;Software as a Service&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+We used to say that SaaS (short for &ldquo;Software as a
+Service&rdquo;) 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, &ldquo;Service as a Software
+Substitute&rdquo; or &ldquo;SaaSS.&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;software como
+servicio&rdquo; because the joke of &ldquo;software como ser
+vicio&rdquo; (&ldquo;software, as being pernicious&rdquo;) is too good
+to give up.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="SellSoftware">&ldquo;Sell software&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The term &ldquo;sell software&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;selling software&rdquo; with proprietary
+restrictions on the subsequent use of the software. You can be clear,
+and prevent confusion, by saying either &ldquo;distributing copies of
+a program for a fee&rdquo; or &ldquo;imposing proprietary restrictions
+on the use of a program.&rdquo;</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">&ldquo;Sharing (personal data)&rdquo;</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
+&ldquo;sharing.&rdquo; We use the term &ldquo;sharing&rdquo; 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">&ldquo;Sharing economy&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The term &ldquo;sharing economy&rdquo; is not a good way to refer to
+services such as Uber and Airbnb that arrange business transactions
+between people. We use the term &ldquo;sharing&rdquo; to refer to
+noncommercial cooperation, including noncommercial redistribution of
+exact copies of published works. Stretching the word
+&ldquo;sharing&rdquo; 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
+&ldquo;piecework service economy.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Skype">&ldquo;Skype&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Please avoid using the term &ldquo;skype&rdquo; as a verb, meaning any
+kind of video communication or telephony over the Internet in general.
+&ldquo;Skype&rdquo; 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">&ldquo;Software Industry&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The term &ldquo;software industry&rdquo; encourages people to imagine
+that software is always developed by a sort of factory and then
+delivered to &ldquo;consumers.&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;industry&rdquo; is being used as propaganda by
+advocates of software patents. They call software development
+&ldquo;industry&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;industry&rdquo; as &ldquo;automated production of
+material goods.&rdquo;</a></p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="SourceModel">&ldquo;Source model&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Wikipedia uses the term &ldquo;source model&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;open source&rdquo; and
+&rdquo;shared source&rdquo; as answers, but they overlap &mdash;
+Microsoft uses the latter as a marketing term to cover a range of
+practices, some of which are &ldquo;open source&rdquo;. Thus, this
+term really conveys no coherent information, but it provides an
+opportunity to say &ldquo;open source&rdquo; 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">&ldquo;Terminal&rdquo;</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 &ldquo;terminals&rdquo; 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">&ldquo;Theft&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The supporters of a too-strict, repressive form of copyright often use
+words like &ldquo;stolen&rdquo; and &ldquo;theft&rdquo; 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&amp;vol=473&amp;invol=207">
+Laws about theft are not applicable to copyright infringement.</a>
+The supporters of repressive copyright are making an appeal to
+authority&mdash;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
+&ldquo;copyright theft.&rdquo;</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/">&ldquo;piracy&rdquo;
+and &ldquo;theft&rdquo; are smear-words.</a></p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="TrustedComputing">&ldquo;Trusted Computing&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+<a href="/philosophy/can-you-trust.html">&ldquo;Trusted computing&rdquo;</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 &ldquo;trusted&rdquo;; from your
+point of view, it is &ldquo;treacherous.&rdquo;
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Vendor">&ldquo;Vendor&rdquo;</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Please don't use the term &ldquo;vendor&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;supplier&rdquo; 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 &amp; GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</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">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</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">
+ &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</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 &copy; 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>