diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_16.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_16.html | 961 |
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"/> + |