summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_16.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_16.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_16.html961
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 961 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_16.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_16.html
deleted file mode 100644
index e27cc40..0000000
--- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_16.html
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,961 +0,0 @@
-<!-- This is the second edition of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman.
-
-Free Software Foundation
-
-51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
-
-Boston, MA 02110-1335
-Copyright C 2002, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
-Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire book are permitted
-worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is
-preserved. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations
-of this book from the original English into another language provided
-the translation has been approved by the Free Software Foundation and
-the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all
-copies.
-
-ISBN 978-0-9831592-0-9
-Cover design by Rob Myers.
-
-Cover photograph by Peter Hinely.
- -->
-
-
- <a name="Words-to-Avoid-_0028or-Use-with-Care_0029--Because-They-Are-Loaded-or-Confusing">
- </a>
- <h1 class="chapter">
- 16. Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing
- </h1>
- <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-use-correct-terminology-_0028see-also-terminology_0029-7">
- </a>
- <a name="index-terminology_002c-importance-of-using-correct-7">
- </a>
- <p>
- There are a number of words and phrases that we recommend avoiding, or
-avoiding in certain contexts and usages. Some are ambiguous or
-misleading; others presuppose a viewpoint that we hope you disagree
-with. (See also “Categories of Free and Nonfree Software,” on
-p. @refx{Categories-pg}{.)
- </p>
- <a name="BSD_002dStyle">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- BSD-Style
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060BSD_002dstyle_002c_0027_0027-problematic-term">
- </a>
- <p>
- The expression “BSD-style license” leads to confusion because it
-lumps together licenses that have important differences. For instance,
-the original
- <a name="index-BSD-licenses-_0028see-also-both-_0060_0060BSD_002dstyle_0027_0027-and-GPL_0029-1">
- </a>
- <a name="index-GPL_002c-BSD-license-and">
- </a>
- BSD license with the advertising clause is incompatible with the GNU
-General Public License, but the revised BSD license is compatible with
-the GPL.
- </p>
- <p>
- To avoid confusion, it is best to name the specific license in
-question and avoid the vague term “BSD-style.”
- </p>
- <a name="Closed">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Closed
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060closed_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term">
- </a>
- <p>
- Describing nonfree software as “closed” clearly refers to the term
-“open source.” In the free software movement, we do not want to be
-confused with the open source camp, so we are careful to avoid saying
-things that would encourage people to lump us in with them. For
-instance, we avoid describing nonfree software as “closed.” We call
-it “nonfree” or “proprietary.”
- </p>
- <p>
- @vglue -13pt@null
- <a name="Cloud-Computing">
- </a>
- </p>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Cloud Computing
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060cloud-computing_002c_0027_0027-avoid-use-of-term">
- </a>
- <p>
- The term “cloud computing” is a marketing buzzword with no clear
-meaning. It is used for a range of different activities whose only
-common characteristic is that they use the Internet for something
-beyond transmitting files. Thus, the term is a nexus of confusion. If
-you base your thinking on it, your thinking will be vague.
- </p>
- <p>
- When thinking about or responding to a statement someone else has made
-using this term, the first step is to clarify the topic. Which kind of
-activity is the statement really about, and what is a good, clear term
-for that activity? Once the topic is clear, the discussion can head
-for a useful conclusion.
- </p>
- <p>
- Curiously,
- <a name="index-Ellison_002c-Larry">
- </a>
- Larry Ellison, a proprietary software
- <a name="index-developers_002c-proprietary-software-2">
- </a>
- developer, also noted the vacuity of the term “cloud
-computing.”
- <a href="#FOOT32" name="DOCF32">
- (32)
- </a>
- He decided to use the term anyway
-{@parfillskip=0pt@parbecause, as a proprietary software developer, he isn’t motivated by
-the same ideals as we are.
- </p>
- <a name="Commercial">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Commercial
- </h3>
- <a name="index-commercial-software-_0028see-also-software_0029-1">
- </a>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060commercial_002c_0027_0027-problematic-use-of-term">
- </a>
- <a name="index-software_002c-commercial-_0028see-also-commercial-software_0029-1">
- </a>
- <p>
- Please don’t use “commercial” as a synonym for “nonfree.” That
-confuses two entirely different issues.
- </p>
- <p>
- A program is commercial if it is developed as a business activity. A
-commercial program can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of
-distribution. Likewise, a program developed by a school or an
-individual can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of
-distribution. The two questions—what sort of entity developed the
-program and what freedom its users have—are independent.
- </p>
- <a name="index-universities-1">
- </a>
- <p>
- In the first decade of the free software movement, free software
-packages were almost always noncommercial; the components of the
-GNU/Linux operating system were developed by individuals or by
-nonprofit organizations such as the FSF and universities. Later, in
-the 1990s, free commercial software started to appear.
- </p>
- <p>
- Free commercial software is a contribution to our community, so we
-should encourage it. But people who think that “commercial” means
-“nonfree” will tend to think that the “free commercial”
-combination is self-contradictory, and dismiss the possibility. Let’s
-be careful not to use the word “commercial” in that way.
- </p>
- <a name="Compensation">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Compensation
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060compensation_002c_0027_0027-false-assumptions-connected-to-term">
- </a>
- <a name="index-copyright_002c-false-assumptions-related-to-_0060_0060compensation_0027_0027-for-authors">
- </a>
- <p>
- To speak of “compensation for authors” in connection with copyright
-carries the assumptions that (1) copyright exists for the sake of
-authors and (2) whenever we read something, we take on a debt to the
-author which we must then repay. The first assumption is simply false,
-and the second is outrageous.
- </p>
- <a name="Consumer">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Consumer
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060consumer_002c_0027_0027-problematic-use-of-term-_0028see-also-_0060_0060open-source_0027_0027_0029">
- </a>
- <p>
- The term “consumer,” when used to refer to computer users, is loaded
-with assumptions we should reject. Playing a digital recording, or
-running a program, does not consume it.
- </p>
- <p>
- The terms “producer” and “consumer” come from economic theory, and
-bring with them its narrow perspective and misguided assumptions. They
-tend to warp your thinking.
- </p>
- <p>
- In addition, describing the users of software as “consumers”
-presumes a narrow role for them: it regards them as cattle that
-passively graze on what others make available to them.
- </p>
- <p>
- This kind of thinking leads to travesties like the
- <a name="index-Consumer-Broadband-and-Digital-Television-Promotion-Act-_0028CBDTPA_0029">
- </a>
- CBDTPA, the “Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act,”
-which would require copying restriction facilities in every digital
-device. If all the users do is “consume,” then why should they mind?
- </p>
- <p>
- The shallow economic conception of users as “consumers” tends to go
-hand in hand with the idea that published works are mere “content.”
- </p>
- <p>
- To describe people who are not limited to passive use of works, we
-suggest terms such as “individuals” and “citizens.”
- </p>
- <a name="Content">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Content
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060content_002c_0027_0027-problematic-use-of-term">
- </a>
- <p>
- If you want to describe a feeling of comfort and satisfaction, by all
-means say you are “content,” but using the word as a noun to
-describe written and other works of authorship adopts an attitude you
-might rather avoid. It regards these works as a commodity whose
-purpose is to fill a box and make money. In effect, it disparages the
-works themselves.
- </p>
- <p>
- Those who use this term are often the publishers that push for
-increased copyright power in the name of the authors (“creators,” as
-they say) of the works. The term “content” reveals their real
-attitude towards these works and their authors. (See
- <a name="index-Love_002c-Courtney">
- </a>
- Courtney
-Love’s open letter to
- <a name="index-Case_002c-Steve">
- </a>
- Steve Case
- <a href="#FOOT33" name="DOCF33">
- (33)
- </a>
- and search for “content provider” in that page. Alas, Ms. Love is
-unaware that the term
- <a name="index-_0060_0060intellectual-property_002c_0027_0027-bias-and-fallacy-of-term-_0028see-also-ownership_0029-5">
- </a>
- “intellectual property” is also biased and confusing.)
- </p>
- <p>
- However, as long as other people use the term “content provider,”
-political dissidents can well call themselves “malcontent
-providers.”
- </p>
- <p>
- The term “content management” takes the prize for vacuity.
-“Content” means “some sort of information,” and “management” in
-this context means “doing something with it.” So a “content
-management system” is a system for doing something to some sort of
-information. Nearly all programs fit that description.
- </p>
- <p>
- In most cases, that term really refers to a system for updating pages
-on a web site. For that, we recommend the term “web site revision
-system” (WRS).
- </p>
- <a name="Creator">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Creator
- </h3>
- <a name="index-copyright_002c-_0060_0060creator_0027_0027">
- </a>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060creator_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term">
- </a>
- <p>
- The term “creator” as applied to authors implicitly compares them to
-a deity (“the creator”). The term is used by publishers to elevate
-authors’ moral standing above that of ordinary people in order to
-justify giving them increased copyright power, which the publishers
-can then exercise in their name. We recommend saying “author”
-instead. However, in many cases “copyright holder” is what you
-really mean.
- </p>
- <a name="Digital-Goods">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Digital Goods
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060digital-goods_002c_0027_0027-problematic-term">
- </a>
- <p>
- The term “digital goods,” as applied to copies of works of
-authorship, erroneously identifies them with physical goods—which
-cannot be copied, and which therefore have to be manufactured and
-sold.
- </p>
- <a name="Digital-Rights-Management">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Digital Rights Management
- </h3>
- <a name="index-DRM_002c-call-it-_0060_0060Digital-Restrictions-Management_0027_0027">
- </a>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060Digital-Rights-Management_002c_0027_0027-avoid-use-of-term-_0028see-also-DRM_0029">
- </a>
- <p>
- “Digital Rights Management” refers to technical schemes designed to
-impose restrictions on computer users. The use of the word “rights”
-in this term is propaganda, designed to lead you unawares into seeing
-the issue from the viewpoint of the few that impose the restrictions,
-and ignoring that of the general public on whom these restrictions are
-imposed.
- </p>
- <p>
- Good alternatives include “Digital Restrictions Management,” and
-“digital handcuffs.”
- </p>
- <a name="Ecosystem">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Ecosystem
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060ecosystem_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-description-of-free-software-community">
- </a>
- <p>
- It is a mistake to describe the free software community, or any human
-community, as an “ecosystem,” because that word implies the absence
-of ethical judgment.
- </p>
- <p>
- The term “ecosystem” implicitly suggests an attitude of
-nonjudgmental observation: don’t ask how what
- <em>
- should
- </em>
- happen,
-just study and explain what
- <em>
- does
- </em>
- happen. In an ecosystem, some
-organisms consume other organisms. We do not ask whether it is fair
-for an owl to eat a mouse or for a mouse to eat a plant, we only
-observe that they do so. Species’ populations grow or shrink according
-to the conditions; this is neither right nor wrong, merely an
-ecological phenomenon.
- </p>
- <p>
- By contrast, beings that adopt an ethical stance towards their
-surroundings can decide to preserve things that, on their own, might
-vanish—such as civil society, democracy, human rights, peace, public
-health, clean air and water, endangered species, traditional
-arts…and computer users’ freedom.
- </p>
- <a name="For-Free">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- For Free
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060for-free_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term">
- </a>
- <p>
- If you want to say that a program is free software, please don’t say
-that it is available “for free.” That term specifically means “for
-zero price.” Free software is a matter of freedom, not price.
- </p>
- <p>
- Free software copies are often available for free—for example, by
-downloading via FTP. But free software copies are also available for a
-price on CD-ROMs; meanwhile, proprietary software copies are
-occasionally available for free in promotions, and some proprietary
-packages are normally available at no charge to certain users.
- </p>
- <p>
- To avoid confusion, you can say that the program is available
-“as free software.”
- </p>
- <a name="Freely-Available">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Freely Available
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060freely-available_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term">
- </a>
- <p>
- Don’t use “freely available software” as a synonym for “free
-software.” The terms are not equivalent. Software is “freely
-available” if anyone can easily get a copy. “Free software” is
-defined in terms of the freedom of users that have a copy of it. These
-are answers to different questions.
- </p>
- <a name="Freeware-1">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Freeware
- </h3>
- <a name="index-freeware-_0028see-also-software_0029-1">
- </a>
- <p>
- Please don’t use the term “freeware” as a synonym for “free
-software.” The term “freeware” was used often in the 1980s for
-programs released only as executables, with source code not
-available. Today it has no particular agreed-on definition.
- </p>
- <p>
- When using languages other than English, please avoid borrowing
-English terms such as “free software” or “freeware.” It is better
-to translate the term “free software” into your language. (Please
-see p. @refx{FS Translations-pg}{ for a list of recommended unambiguous
-translations for the term “free software” into various languages.)
- </p>
- <p>
- By using a word in your own language, you show that you are really
-referring to freedom and not just parroting some mysterious foreign
-marketing concept. The reference to freedom may at first seem strange
-or disturbing to your compatriots, but once they see that it means
-exactly what it says, they will really understand what the issue is.
- </p>
- <a name="Give-Away-Software">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Give Away Software
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060give-away-software_002c_0027_0027-misleading-use-of-term-1">
- </a>
- <p>
- It’s misleading to use the term “give away” to mean “distribute a
-program as free software.” This locution has the same problem as
-“for free”: it implies the issue is price, not freedom. One way to
-avoid the confusion is to say “release as free software.”
- </p>
- <a name="Hacker">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Hacker
- </h3>
- <a name="index-hackers-7">
- </a>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060hacker_002c_0027_0027-actual-meaning-of-term-_0028see-also-_0060_0060cracker_0027_0027_0029-1">
- </a>
- <a name="index-MIT-5">
- </a>
- <p>
- A hacker is someone who enjoys playful cleverness
- <a href="#FOOT34" name="DOCF34">
- (34)
- </a>
- —not
-necessarily with computers. The programmers in the old MIT free
-software community of the 60s and 70s referred to themselves as
-hackers. Around 1980, journalists who discovered the hacker community
-mistakenly took the term to mean “security breaker.”
- </p>
- <p>
- Please don’t spread this mistake. People who break security are
-“crackers.”
- </p>
- <a name="Intellectual-Property">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Intellectual Property
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060intellectual-property_002c_0027_0027-bias-and-fallacy-of-term-_0028see-also-ownership_0029-6">
- </a>
- <a name="index-trademarks-and_002for-trademark-law-1">
- </a>
- <p>
- Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as “intellectual
-property”—a term also applied to patents, trademarks, and other
-more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and
-differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is
-best to talk specifically about “copyright,” or about “patents,”
-or about “trademarks.”
- </p>
- <p>
- The term “intellectual property” carries a hidden assumption—that
-the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an
-analogy with physical objects, and our conception of them as physical
-property.
- </p>
- <p>
- When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial
-difference between material objects and information: information can
-be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can’t
-be.
- </p>
- <p>
- To avoid spreading unnecessary bias and confusion, it is best to adopt
-a firm policy not to speak or even think in terms of “intellectual
-property.”
- </p>
- <p>
- The hypocrisy of calling these powers “rights” is starting to make
-the
- <a name="index-World-_0060_0060Intellectual-Property_0027_0027-Organization-_0028WIPO_0029-_0028see-also-_0060_0060intellectual-property_0027_0027_0029-2">
- </a>
- World “Intellectual Property” Organization embarrassed.
- </p>
- <a name="LAMP-System">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- LAMP System
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060LAMP-system_002c_0027_0027-problematic-term-_0028see-also-GLAMP_0029">
- </a>
- <p>
- “LAMP” stands for “Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP”—a common
-combination of software to use on a web server, except that “Linux”
-in this context really refers to the GNU/Linux system. So instead of
-“LAMP” it should be
- <a name="index-GLAMP-_0028GNU_002c-Linux_002c-Apache_002c-MySQL-and-PHP_0029-system">
- </a>
- <a name="index-GNU_002c-GLAMP-_0028GNU_002c-Linux_002c-Apache_002c-MySQL-and-PHP_0029-system">
- </a>
- “GLAMP”: “GNU, Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP.”
- </p>
- <a name="Linux-System">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Linux System
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060Linux-system_002c_0027_0027-avoid-use-of-term">
- </a>
- <a name="index-Torvalds_002c-Linus-1">
- </a>
- <a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-Project-7">
- </a>
- <a name="index-kernel_002c-Linux-1">
- </a>
- <a name="index-Linux-kernel-1">
- </a>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060Linux_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term-_0028see-also-open-source_0029-3">
- </a>
- <p>
- Linux is the name of the kernel that Linus Torvalds developed starting
-in 1991. The operating system in which Linux is used is basically GNU
-with Linux added. To call the whole system “Linux” is both unfair
-and confusing. Please call the complete system GNU/Linux, both to give
-the GNU Project credit and to distinguish the whole system from the
-kernel alone.
- </p>
- <a name="Market">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Market
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060market_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term">
- </a>
- <p>
- It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the
-software users in general, as a “market.”
- </p>
- <p>
- This is not to say there is no room for markets in the free software
-community. If you have a free software support business, then you
-have clients, and you trade with them in a market. As long as you
-respect their freedom, we wish you success in your market.
- </p>
- <p>
- But the free software movement is a social movement, not a business,
-and the success it aims for is not a market success. We are trying to
-serve the public by giving it freedom—not competing to draw business
-away from a rival. To equate this campaign for freedom to a business’
-efforts for mere success is to deny the importance of freedom and
-legitimize proprietary software.
- </p>
- <a name="MP3-Player">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- MP3 Player
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060MP3-Player_002c_0027_0027-problematic-use-of-term">
- </a>
- <a name="index-MP3-1">
- </a>
- <a name="index-Ogg-Vorbis">
- </a>
- <a name="index-FLAC">
- </a>
- <p>
- In the late 1990s it became feasible to make portable, solid-state
-digital audio players. Most support the patented MP3 codec, but not
-all. Some support the patent-free audio codecs Ogg Vorbis and FLAC,
-and may not even support MP3-encoded files at all, precisely to avoid
-these patents. To call such players “MP3 players” is not only
-confusing, it also puts MP3 in an undeserved position of privilege
-which encourages people to continue using that vulnerable format. We
-suggest the terms “digital audio player,” or simply “audio player”
-if context permits.
- </p>
- <a name="Open">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Open
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060open_002c_0027_0027-misleading-use-of-term-1">
- </a>
- <p>
- Please avoid using the term “open” or “open source” as a
-substitute for “free software.” Those terms refer to a different
-position based on different values. Free software is a political
-movement; open source is a development model.
- </p>
- <p>
- When referring to the open source position, using its name is
-appropriate; but please do not use it to label us or our work—that
-leads people to think we share those views.
- </p>
- <a name="PC">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- PC
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060PC_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term">
- </a>
- <p>
- It’s OK to use the abbreviation “PC” to refer to a certain kind of
-computer hardware, but please don’t use it with the implication that
-the computer is running Microsoft
- <a name="index-Windows-1">
- </a>
- Windows. If you install GNU/Linux on the same computer, it is still a
-PC.
- </p>
- <p>
- The term “WC” has been suggested for a computer running Windows.
- </p>
- <a name="Photoshop">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Photoshop
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060photoshop_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term">
- </a>
- <p>
- Please avoid using the term “photoshop” as a verb, meaning any kind
-of photo manipulation or image editing in general. Photoshop is just
-the name of one particular image editing program, which should be
-avoided since it is proprietary. There are plenty of free
-alternatives, such as
- <a name="index-GIMP">
- </a>
- <a name="index-GNU_002c-GIMP">
- </a>
- GIMP.
- </p>
- <a name="Piracy">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Piracy
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060piracy_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term-4">
- </a>
- <p>
- Publishers often refer to copying they don’t approve of as “piracy.”
-In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking
-ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on
-them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the
-world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all)
-circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions
-more complete.)
- </p>
- <p>
- If you don’t believe that copying not approved by the publisher is
-just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word
-“piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as “unauthorized
-copying” (or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is
-illegal) are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer
-to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your
-neighbor.”
- </p>
- <a name="PowerPoint">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- PowerPoint
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060PowerPoint_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term">
- </a>
- <p>
- Please avoid using the term “PowerPoint” to mean any kind of slide
-presentation. “PowerPoint” is just the name of one particular
-proprietary program to make presentations, and there are plenty of
-free alternatives, such as
- <a name="index-TeX-3">
- </a>
- TeX’s
- <a name="index-beamer-class_002c-TeX">
- </a>
- <tt>
- beamer
- </tt>
- class
-and
- <a name="index-OpenOffice_002eorg">
- </a>
- OpenOffice.org’s
- <a name="index-Impress_002c-OpenOffice_002eorg">
- </a>
- Impress.
- </p>
- <a name="Protection">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Protection
- </h3>
- <a name="index-copyright_002c-_0060_0060protection_0027_0027">
- </a>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060protection_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term">
- </a>
- <p>
- Publishers’ lawyers love to use the term “protection” to describe
-copyright. This word carries the implication of preventing destruction
-or suffering; therefore, it encourages people to identify with the
-owner and publisher who benefit from copyright, rather than with the
-users who are restricted by it.
- </p>
- <p>
- It is easy to avoid “protection” and use neutral terms instead. For
-example, instead of saying, “Copyright protection lasts a very long
-time,” you can say, “Copyright lasts a very long time.”
- </p>
- <p>
- If you want to criticize copyright instead of supporting it, you can
-use the term “copyright restrictions.” Thus, you can say,
-“Copyright restrictions last a very long time.”
- </p>
- <p>
- The term “protection” is also used to describe malicious features.
-For instance, “copy protection” is a feature that interferes with
-copying. From the user’s point of view, this is obstruction. So we
-could call that malicious feature “copy obstruction.” More often it
-is called Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)—see the Defective by
-Design campaign, at
- <a href="http://www.defectivebydesign.org">
- http://www.defectivebydesign.org
- </a>
- .
- </p>
- <a name="RAND-_0028Reasonable-and-Non_002dDiscriminatory_0029">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- RAND (Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory)
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060RAND-_0028Reasonable-and-Non_002dDiscriminatory_0029_002c_0027_0027-avoid-use-of-term-_0028see-also-patents_0029">
- </a>
- <p>
- Standards bodies that promulgate patent-restricted standards that
-prohibit free software typically have a policy of obtaining patent
-licenses that require a fixed fee per copy of a conforming program.
-They often refer to such licenses by the term “RAND,” which stands
-for “reasonable and non-discriminatory.”
- </p>
- <p>
- That term whitewashes a class of patent licenses that are normally
-neither reasonable nor nondiscriminatory. It is true that these
-licenses do not discriminate against any specific person, but they do
-discriminate against the free software community, and that makes them
-unreasonable. Thus, half of the term “RAND” is deceptive and the
-other half is prejudiced.
- </p>
- <p>
- Standards bodies should recognize that these licenses are
-discriminatory, and drop the use of the term “reasonable and
-non-discriminatory” or “RAND” to describe them. Until they do so,
-writers who do not wish to join in the whitewashing would do well to
-reject that term. To accept and use it merely because patent-wielding
-companies have made it widespread is to let those companies dictate
-the views you express.
- </p>
- <a name="index-patents_002c-_0060_0060uniform-fee-only_0027_0027">
- </a>
- <p>
- We suggest the term “uniform fee only,” or “UFO” for short, as a
-replacement. It is accurate because the only condition in these
-licenses is a uniform royalty fee.
- </p>
- <a name="Sell-Software">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Sell Software
- </h3>
- <a name="index-selling_002c-_0060_0060sell-software_002c_0027_0027-ambiguous-term">
- </a>
- <p>
- The term “sell software” is ambiguous. Strictly speaking, exchanging
-a copy of a free program for a sum of money is selling; but people
-usually associate the term “sell” with proprietary restrictions on
-the subsequent use of the software. You can be more precise, and
-prevent confusion, by saying either “distributing copies of a program
-for a fee” or “imposing proprietary restrictions on the use of a
-program,” depending on what you mean.
- </p>
- <p>
- See “Selling Free Software” (p. @refx{Selling-pg}{) for further
-discussion of this issue.
- </p>
- <a name="Software-Industry">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Software Industry
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060software-industry_002c_0027_0027-problematic-term">
- </a>
- <p>
- The term “software industry” encourages people to imagine that
-software is always developed by a sort of factory and then delivered
-to “consumers.” The free software community shows this is not the
-case. Software businesses exist, and various businesses develop free
-and/or nonfree software, but those that develop free software are not
-run like factories.
- </p>
- <p>
- The term “industry” is being used as propaganda by advocates of
-software patents. They call software development “industry” and then
-try to argue that this means it should be subject to patent
-monopolies. The
- <a name="index-European-Parliament">
- </a>
- <a name="index-European-Union_002c-proposed-European-Union-software-patents-directive">
- </a>
- <a name="index-patents_002c-proposed-European-Union-software-patents-directive">
- </a>
- European Parliament, rejecting software patents in
-2003,
- <a href="#FOOT35" name="DOCF35">
- (35)
- </a>
- voted to define “industry” as “automated
-production of material goods.”
- </p>
- <a name="Theft">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Theft
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060theft_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term-1">
- </a>
- <p>
- Copyright apologists often use words like “stolen” and “theft” to
-describe copyright infringement. At the same time, they ask us to
-treat the legal system as an authority on ethics: if copying is
-forbidden, it must be wrong.
- </p>
- <p>
- So it is pertinent to mention that the legal system—at least in the
-US—rejects the idea that copyright infringement is “theft.”
-Copyright apologists are making an appeal to authority…and
-misrepresenting what authority says.
- </p>
- <p>
- The idea that laws decide what is right or wrong is mistaken in
-general. Laws are, at their best, an attempt to achieve justice; to
-say that laws define justice or ethical conduct is turning things
-upside down.
- </p>
- <a name="Trusted-Computing">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Trusted Computing
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060trusted-computing_002c_0027_0027-avoid-use-of-term-_0028see-also-treacherous-computing_0029">
- </a>
- <p>
- “Trusted computing” is the proponents’ name for a scheme to redesign
-computers so that application
- <a name="index-developers_002c-proprietary-software-3">
- </a>
- developers can trust your computer to obey them instead of you. From
-their point of view, it is “trusted”; from your point of view, it is
- <a name="index-treacherous-computing">
- </a>
- “treacherous.”
- </p>
- <a name="Vendor">
- </a>
- <h3 class="subheading">
- Vendor
- </h3>
- <a name="index-_0060_0060vendor_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term">
- </a>
- <p>
- Please don’t use the term “vendor” to refer generally to anyone that
-develops or packages software. Many programs are developed in order to
-sell copies, and their
- <a name="index-developers_002c-term-_0060_0060vendor_0027_0027-and">
- </a>
- developers are therefore their vendors; this even includes some free
-software packages. However, many programs are developed by volunteers
-or organizations which do not intend to sell copies. These developers
-are not vendors. Likewise, only some of the packagers of GNU/Linux
-distributions are vendors. We recommend the general term “supplier”
-instead.
- </p>
- <a name="index-terminology_002c-importance-of-using-correct-8">
- </a>
- <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-use-correct-terminology-_0028see-also-terminology_0029-8">
- </a>
- <div class="footnote">
- <hr>
- <h3>
- Footnotes
- </h3>
- <h3>
- <a href="#DOCF32" name="FOOT32">
- (32)
- </a>
- </h3>
- <p>
- Dan Farber, “Oracle’s Ellison Nails Cloud
-Computing,” 26 September 2008,
- <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13953_3-10052188-80.html">
- http://news.cnet.com/8301-13953_3-10052188-80.html
- </a>
- .
-@vglue -1pc
- </p>
- <h3>
- <a href="#DOCF33" name="FOOT33">
- (33)
- </a>
- </h3>
- <p>
- An unedited transcript of American rock musician
-Courtney Love’s 16 May 2000 speech to the Digital Hollywood
-online-entertainment conference, in New York, is available at
- <a href="http://salon.com/technology/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html">
- http://salon.com/technology/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html
- </a>
- .
-@vglue -1pc
- </p>
- <h3>
- <a href="#DOCF34" name="FOOT34">
- (34)
- </a>
- </h3>
- <p>
- See my
-article, “On Hacking,” at
- <a href="http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html">
- http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html
- </a>
- .
-@vglue -1pc
- </p>
- <h3>
- <a href="#DOCF35" name="FOOT35">
- (35)
- </a>
- </h3>
- <p>
- “Directive on the patentability of
-computer-implemented inventions,” 24 September 2003,
- <a href="http://eupat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309">
- http://eupat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309
- </a>
- .
-@vglue -1pc
- </p>
- </hr>
- </div>
- <hr size="2"/>
-