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, 961 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_16.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_16.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e27cc40
--- /dev/null
+++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_16.html
@@ -0,0 +1,961 @@
+<!-- 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"/>
+