From 1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Grothoff Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 13:29:45 +0200 Subject: add i18n FSFS --- .../blog/articles/en/words-to-avoid.html | 1419 ++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 1419 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/words-to-avoid.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/words-to-avoid.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/words-to-avoid.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/words-to-avoid.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a6d3725 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/words-to-avoid.html @@ -0,0 +1,1419 @@ + + +Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + +

Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing

+ +

+There are a number of words and phrases that we recommend avoiding, or +avoiding in certain contexts and usages. Some are ambiguous or +misleading; others presuppose a viewpoint that we disagree with, and +we hope you disagree with it too.

+ +
+

Also note Categories of Free +Software, +Why Call It The +Swindle?

+
+ +

“Ad-blocker” +| “Access” +| “Alternative” +| “Assets” +| “BSD-style” +| “Closed” +| “Cloud Computing” +| “Commercial” +| “Compensation” +| “Consume” +| “Consumer” +| “Content” +| “Copyright Owner” +| “Creative Commons licensed” +| “Creator” +| “Digital Goods” +| “Digital Locks” +| “Digital Rights Management” +| “Ecosystem” +| “FLOSS” +| “For free” +| “FOSS” +| “Freely available” +| “Freeware” +| “Give away software” +| “Google” +| “Hacker” +| “Intellectual property” +| “Internet of Things” +| “LAMP system” +| “Linux system” +| “Market” +| “Modern” +| “Monetize” +| “MP3 player” +| “Open” +| “PC” +| “Photoshop” +| “Piracy” +| “PowerPoint” +| “Product” +| “Protection” +| “RAND” +| “SaaS” +| “Sell software” +| “Sharing (personal data)” +| “Sharing economy” +| “Skype” +| “Software Industry” +| “Source model” +| + + +“Terminal” +| “Theft” +| “Trusted Computing” +| “Vendor” +

+ + + +

“Ad-blocker”

+ +

+When the purpose of some program is to block advertisements, +“ad-blocker” is a good term for it. However, the GNU +browser IceCat blocks advertisements that track the user as +consequence of broader measures to prevent surveillance by web sites. +This is not an “ad-blocker,” this is +surveillance protection.

+ + + +

“Access”

+ +

+It is a common misunderstanding to think free software means that the +public has “access” to a program. That is not what free +software means.

+

+The criterion for free software +is not about who has “access” to the program; the four +essential freedoms concern what a user that has a copy of the program +is allowed to do with it. For instance, freedom 2 says that that user +is free to make another copy and give or sell it to you. But no user +is obligated to do that for you; you do not have +a right to demand a copy of that program from any user.

+

+In particular, if you write a program yourself and never offer a copy +to anyone else, that program is free software albeit in a trivial way, +because every user that has a copy has the four essential freedoms +(since the only such user is you).

+

+In practice, when many users have copies of a program, someone is sure +to post it on the internet, giving everyone access to it. We think +people ought to do that, if the program is useful. But that isn't a +requirement of free software.

+

+There is one specific point in which a question of having access is +directly pertinent to free software: the GNU GPL permits giving a +particular user access to download a program's source code as a +substitute for physically giving that user a copy of the source. This +applies to the special case in which the user already has a copy of +the program in non-source form.

+ +

Instead of with free software, +the public has access to the program, +we say, with free software, the users have the essential +freedoms and with free software, the users have control +of what the program does for them.

+
+ + + +

“Alternative”

+ +

+We don't describe free software as an “alternative” to +proprietary, because that word presumes all the “alternatives” are +legitimate and each additional one makes users better off. In effect, +it assumes that free software ought to coexist with software that does +not respect users' freedom.

+

+We believe that distribution as free software is the only ethical way +to make software available for others to use. The other methods, +nonfree +software +and Service +as a Software Substitute subjugate their users. We do not think +it is good to offer users those “alternatives” to free +software. +

+ + + +

“Assets”

+ +

+To refer to published works as “assets”, or “digital +assets”, is even worse than calling +them “content” — it presumes +they have no value to society except commercial value.

+ + + +

“BSD-style”

+ +

+The expression “BSD-style license” leads to confusion because it +lumps together licenses that have +important differences. For instance, the original BSD license +with the advertising clause is incompatible with the GNU General +Public License, but the revised BSD license is compatible with the +GPL.

+

+To avoid confusion, it is best to +name the specific license in +question and avoid the vague term “BSD-style.”

+ + + +

“Closed”

+ +

+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”.

+ + + +

“Cloud Computing”

+ +

+The term “cloud computing” (or +just “cloud”, in the context of +computing) is a marketing buzzword with no coherent meaning. It is +used for a range of different activities whose only common +characteristic is that they use the Internet for something beyond +transmitting files. Thus, the term spreads confusion. If you base +your thinking on it, your thinking will be confused (or, could we say, +“cloudy”?). +

+ +

+When thinking about or responding to a statement someone else has made +using this term, the first step is to clarify the topic. What +scenario is the statement about? What is a good, clear term for that +scenario? Once the topic is clearly formulated, coherent thought +about it becomes possible. +

+ +

+One of the many meanings of “cloud computing” is storing +your data in online services. In most scenarios, that is foolish +because it exposes you to +surveillance. +

+ +

+Another meaning (which overlaps that but is not the same thing) +is +Service as a Software Substitute, which denies you control over +your computing. You should never use SaaSS. +

+ +

+Another meaning is renting a remote physical server, or virtual server. +These practices are ok under certain circumstances. +

+ +

+Another meaning is accessing your own server from your own mobile device. +That raises no particular ethical issues. +

+ +

+The +NIST definition of "cloud computing" mentions three scenarios that +raise different ethical issues: Software as a Service, Platform as a +Service, and Infrastructure as a Service. However, that definition +does not match the common use of “cloud computing”, since +it does not include storing data in online services. Software as a +Service as defined by NIST overlaps considerably with Service as a +Software Substitute, which mistreats the user, but the two concepts +are not equivalent. +

+ +

+These different computing practices don't even belong in the same +discussion. The best way to avoid the confusion the term “cloud +computing” spreads is not to use the term “cloud” in +connection with computing. Talk about the scenario you mean, and call +it by a specific term. +

+ +

+Curiously, Larry Ellison, a proprietary software developer, +also +noted the vacuity of the term “cloud computing.” He +decided to use the term anyway because, as a proprietary software +developer, he isn't motivated by the same ideals as we are. +

+ + + +

“Commercial”

+ +

+Please don't use “commercial” as a synonym for +“nonfree.” That confuses two entirely different +issues.

+

+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.

+

+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.

+

+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.

+ + + + +

“Compensation”

+ +

+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. +

+

+“Compensating the rights-holders” adds a further swindle: +you're supposed to imagine that means paying the authors, and +occasionally it does, but most of the time it means a subsidy for the +same publishing companies that are pushing unjust laws on us. +

+ + + +

“Consume”

+ +

+“Consume” refers to what we do with food: we ingest it, +after which the food as such no longer exists. By analogy, we employ +the same word for other products whose use uses them up. +Applying it to durable goods, such as clothing or appliances, is a +stretch. Applying it to published works (programs, recordings on a +disk or in a file, books on paper or in a file), whose nature is to +last indefinitely and which can be run, played or read any number of +times, is stretching the word so far that it snaps. Playing a +recording, or running a program, does not consume it.

+ +

+Those who use “consume” in this context will say they +don't mean it literally. What, then, does it mean? It means to regard +copies of software and other works from a narrow economistic point of +view. “Consume” is associated with the economics of +material commodities, such as the fuel or electricity that a car uses +up. Gasoline is a commodity, and so is electricity. Commodities +are fungible: there is nothing special about a drop of +gasoline that your car burns today versus another drop that it burned +last week.

+ +

What does it mean to think of works of authorship as a commodity, +with the assumption that there is nothing special about any one story, +article, program, or song? That is the twisted viewpoint of the owner +or the accountant of a publishing company. It is no surprise that +proprietary software would like you to think of the use of software as +a commodity. Their twisted viewpoint comes through clearly +in this +article, which also refers to publications as +“content.”

+ +

+The narrow thinking associated with the idea that we “consume +content” paves the way for laws such as the DMCA that forbid +users to break the Digital +Restrictions Management (DRM) facilities in digital devices. If +users think what they do with these devices is “consume,” +they may see such restrictions as natural.

+ +

+It also encourages the acceptance of “streaming” services, +which use DRM to perversely limit listening to music, or watching +video, to squeeze those activities into the assumptions of the word +“consume.”

+ +

+Why is this perverse usage spreading? Some may feel that the term +sounds sophisticated, but rejecting it with cogent reasons can appear +even more sophisticated. Some want to generalize about all kinds of +media, but the usual English verbs (“read,” “listen +to,” “watch”) don't do this. Others may be acting +from business interests (their own, or their employers'). Their use +of the term in prestigious forums gives the impression that it's the +“correct” term.

+ +

+To speak of “consuming” music, fiction, or any other +artistic works is to treat them as commodities rather than as art. Do +we want to think of published works that way? Do we want to encourage +the public to do so?

+ +

Those who answer no, please join me in shunning the term +“consume” for this.

+ +

What to use instead? You can use specific verbs such as +“read,” “listen to,” “watch” or +“look at,” since they help to restrain the tendency to +overgeneralize.

+ +

If you insist on generalizing, you can use the expression +“attend to,” which requires less of a stretch than +“consume.” For a work meant for practical use, +“use” is best.

+ +

See also the following entry.

+ + + +

“Consumer”

+ +

+The term “consumer,” when used to refer to the users of +computing, is loaded with assumptions we should reject. Some come +from the idea that using the program “consumes” the program (see +the previous entry), which leads people to +impose on copiable digital works the economic conclusions that were +drawn about uncopiable material products.

+

+In addition, describing the users of software as +“consumers” refers to a framing in which people are +limited to selecting between whatever “products” are +available in the “market.” There is no room in this +framing for the idea that users +can directly +exercise control over what a program does.

+

+To describe people who are not limited to passive use of works, we +suggest terms such as “individuals” and +“citizens,” rather than “consumers.”

+

+This problem with the word “consumer” has +been noted before. +

+ + + +

“Content”

+ +

+If you want to describe a feeling of comfort and satisfaction, by all +means say you are “content,” but using the word as a +noun to describe publications and works of authorship adopts an +attitude you might rather avoid: it treats them as a +commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and make money. In effect, +it disparages the works themselves. If you don't agree with that +attitude, you can call them “works” or “publications.” +

+

+Those who use the term “content” are often the publishers +that push for increased copyright power in the name of the authors +(“creators,” as they say) of the works. The term +“content” reveals their real attitude towards these works +and their authors. This was also recognized by Tom Chatfield +in the Guardian:

+ +

+Content itself is beside the point—as the very use of words like +content suggests. The moment you start labelling every single piece of +writing in the world “content,” you have conceded its +interchangeability: its primary purpose as mere grist to the metrical +mill. +

+ +

+In other words, “content” reduces publications and +writings to a sort of pap fit to be piped through the +“tubes” of the internet. +

+ +

See also Courtney +Love's open letter to Steve Case and search for “content +provider” in that page. Alas, Ms. Love is unaware that the term +“intellectual property” is +also biased and confusing.

+

+However, as long as other people use the term “content +provider,” political dissidents can well call themselves +“malcontent providers.”

+

+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.

+ +

+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).

+ + + +

“Copyright Owner”

+ +

+Copyright is an artificial privilege, handed out by the state to +achieve a public interest and lasting a period of time — not a +natural right like owning a house or a shirt. Lawyers used to +recognize this by referring to the recipient of that privilege as a +“copyright holder.”

+ +

A few decades ago, copyright holders began trying to reduce +awareness of this point. In addition to citing frequently the bogus +concept of “intellectual +property,” they also started calling themselves +“copyright owners.” Please join us in resisting by using +the traditional term “copyright holders” instead.

+ + + +

“Creative Commons licensed”

+ +

+The most important licensing characteristic of a work is whether it is +free. Creative Commons publishes seven licenses; three are free +(CC BY, CC BY-SA and CC0) and the rest are nonfree. Thus, to +describe a work as “Creative Commons licensed” fails to +say whether it is free, and suggests that the question is not +important. The statement may be accurate, but the omission is +harmful. +

+ +

+To encourage people to pay attention to the most important +distinction, always specify which Creative Commons license is +used, as in “licensed under CC BY-SA.” If you don't know +which license a certain work uses, find out and then make your +statement. +

+ + + +

“Creator”

+ +

+The term “creator” as applied to authors implicitly +compares them to a deity (“the creator”). The term is +used by publishers to elevate authors' moral standing above that of +ordinary people in order to justify giving them increased copyright +power, which the publishers can then exercise in their name. We +recommend saying “author” instead. However, in many cases +“copyright holder” is what you really mean. These two +terms are not equivalent: often the copyright holder is not the +author.

+ + + +

“Digital Goods”

+ +

+The term “digital goods,” as applied to copies of works of +authorship, identifies them with physical goods—which cannot be +copied, and which therefore have to be manufactured in quantity and +sold. This metaphor encourages people to judge issues about software +or other digital works based on their views and intuitions about +physical goods. It also frames issues in terms of economics, whose +shallow and limited values don't include freedom and community.

+ + + +

“Digital Locks”

+ +

+“Digital locks” is used to refer to Digital Restrictions +Management by some who criticize it. The problem with this term is +that it fails to do justice to the badness of DRM. The people who +adopted that term did not think it through.

+

+Locks are not necessarily oppressive or bad. You probably own several +locks, and their keys or codes as well; you may find them useful or +troublesome, but they don't oppress you, because you can open and +close them. Likewise, we +find encryption +invaluable for protecting our digital files. That too is a kind +of digital lock that you have control over.

+

+DRM is like a lock placed on you by someone else, who refuses to give +you the key—in other words, like handcuffs. Therefore, +the proper metaphor for DRM is “digital handcuffs,” not +“digital locks.”

+

+A number of opposition campaigns have chosen the unwise term +“digital locks”; to get things back on the right track, we +must firmly insist on correcting this mistake. The FSF can support a +campaign that opposes “digital locks” if we agree on the +substance; however, when we state our support, we conspicuously +replace the term with “digital handcuffs” and say why.

+ + + +

“Digital Rights Management”

+ +

+“Digital Rights Management” (abbreviated +“DRM”) refers to technical mechanisms designed to impose +restrictions on computer users. The use of the word +“rights” in this term is propaganda, designed to lead you +unawares into seeing the issue from the viewpoint of the few that +impose the restrictions, and ignoring that of the general public on +whom these restrictions are imposed.

+

+Good alternatives include “Digital Restrictions +Management,” and “digital handcuffs.”

+

+Please sign up to support our +campaign to abolish DRM.

+ + + +

“Ecosystem”

+ +

+It is inadvisable to describe the free software community, or any human +community, as an “ecosystem,” because that word implies +the absence of ethical judgment.

+ +

+The term “ecosystem” implicitly suggests an attitude of +nonjudgmental observation: don't ask how what should happen, +just study and understand what does happen. In an ecosystem, +some organisms consume other organisms. In ecology, we do not ask +whether it is right for an owl to eat a mouse or for a mouse to eat a +seed, we only observe that they do so. Species' populations grow or +shrink according to the conditions; this is neither right nor wrong, +merely an ecological phenomenon, even if it goes so far as the +extinction of a species.

+ +

+By contrast, beings that adopt an ethical stance towards their +surroundings can decide to preserve things that, without their +intervention, might vanish—such as civil society, democracy, +human rights, peace, public health, a stable climate, clean air and +water, endangered species, traditional arts…and computer users' +freedom. +

+ + + +

“FLOSS”

+ +

+The term “FLOSS,” meaning “Free/Libre and Open +Source Software,” was coined as a way +to be neutral between free +software and open source. If neutrality is your goal, +“FLOSS” is the best way to be neutral. But if you want to +show you stand for freedom, don't use a neutral term.

+ + + +

“For free”

+ +

+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.

+

+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.

+

+To avoid confusion, you can say that the program is available +“as free software.”

+ + + +

“FOSS”

+ +

+The term “FOSS,” meaning “Free and Open Source +Software,” was coined as a way +to be neutral between free +software and open source, but it doesn't really do that. If +neutrality is your goal, “FLOSS” is better. But if you +want to show you stand for freedom, don't use a neutral term.

+ +

Instead of FOSS, +we say, free software or free (libre) software.

+
+ + + +

“Freely available”

+ +

+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. +

+ + + +

“Freeware”

+ +

+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.

+

+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.

+ +

+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. +

+ + + +

“Give away software”

+ +

+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.”

+ + + +

“Google”

+ +

+Please avoid using the term “google” as a verb, meaning to +search for something on the internet. “Google” is just the +name of one particular search engine among others. We suggest to use +the term “search the web” or (in some contexts) just +“search”. Try to use a search engine that respects your +privacy; for instance, DuckDuckGo +claims not to track its users. (There is no way for outsiders to +verify claims of that kind.)

+ + + +

“Hacker”

+ +

+A hacker is someone +who enjoys +playful cleverness—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.”

+ +

+Please don't spread this mistake. +People who break security are “crackers.”

+ + + +

“Intellectual property”

+ +

+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.”

+

+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.

+

+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.

+

+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”.

+

+The hypocrisy of calling these powers “rights” is + +starting to make the World “Intellectual Property” +Organization embarrassed.

+ + + +

“Internet of Things”

+ +

+When companies decided to make computerized appliances that would +connect over the internet to the manufacturer's server, and therefore +could easily snoop on their users, they realized that this would not +sound very nice. So they came up with a cute, appealing name: the +“Internet of Things.”

+

+Experience shows that these products often do + +spy on their users. They are also tailor-made for +giving +people biased advice. In addition, the manufacturer can sabotage the +product by turning off the server it depends on.

+

+We call them the “Internet of Stings.” +

+ + + +

“LAMP system”

+ +

+“LAMP” stands for “Linux, Apache, MySQL and +PHP”—a common combination of software to use on a web +server, except that “Linux” in this context really refers +to the GNU/Linux system. So instead of “LAMP” it should +be “GLAMP”: “GNU, Linux, Apache, MySQL and +PHP.” +

+ + + +

“Linux system”

+ +

+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. +

+ + + +

“Market”

+ +

+It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the +software users in general, as a “market.”

+

+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.

+

+But the free software movement is a social movement, not a business, +and the success it aims for is not a market success. We are trying to +serve the public by giving it freedom—not competing to draw business +away from a rival. To equate this campaign for freedom to a business's +efforts for mere success is to deny the importance of freedom +and legitimize proprietary software.

+ + + +

“Modern”

+ +

+The term “modern” makes sense from a descriptive +perspective — for instance, solely to distinguish newer periods +and ways from older ones.

+ +

It becomes a problem when it carries the presumption that older +ways are “old-fashioned”; that is, presumed to be worse. In +technological fields where businesses make the choices and impose +them on users, the reverse is often true.

+ + + +

“Monetize”

+ +

+The proper definition of “monetize” is “to use +something as currency.” For instance, human societies have +monetized gold, silver, copper, printed paper, special kinds of +seashells, and large rocks. However, we now see a tendency to use the +word in another way, meaning “to use something as a basis for +profit”.

+

+That usage casts the profit as primary, and the thing used to get the +profit as secondary. That attitude applied to a software project is +objectionable because it would lead the developers to make the program +proprietary, if they conclude that making it free/libre isn't +sufficiently profitable.

+

+A productive and ethical business can make money, but if it +subordinates all else to profit, it is not likely to remain +ethical.

+ + + +

“MP3 Player”

+ +

+ + +In the late 1990s it became feasible to make portable, solid-state +digital audio players. Most players supported the patented MP3 codec, +and that is still the case. Some players also supported the +patent-free audio codecs Ogg Vorbis and FLAC, and a few couldn't play +MP3-encoded files at all because their developers needed to protect +themselves from the patents on MP3 format.

+ +

Using the term “MP3 players” for audio players in +general has the effect of promoting the MP3 format and discouraging +the other formats (some of which are technically superior as well). +Even though the MP3 patents have expired, it is still undesirable to +do that.

+ +

We suggest the term “digital audio player,” or simply +“audio player” when that's clear enough, instead of +“MP3 player.”

+ + + +

“Open”

+ +

+Please avoid using the term “open” or “open +source” as a substitute for “free software.” Those terms +refer to a +different set of views based on different values. The free software +movement campaigns for your freedom in your computing, as a matter +of justice. The open source non-movement does not campaign for anything +in this way.

+ +

When referring to the open source views, it's correct to use that +name, but please do not use that term when talking about us, our +software, or our views—that leads people to suppose our views +are similar to theirs.

+ +
+

Instead of open source, +we say, free software or free (libre) software.

+
+ + + +

“PC”

+ +

+It's OK to use the abbreviation “PC” to refer to a certain +kind of computer hardware, but please don't use it with the +implication that the computer is running Microsoft Windows. If you +install GNU/Linux on the same computer, it is still a PC.

+ +

+The term “WC” has been suggested for a computer running +Windows.

+ + + +

“Photoshop”

+ +

+Please avoid using the term “photoshop” as a verb, meaning +any kind of photo manipulation or image editing in general. Photoshop +is just the name of one particular image editing program, which should +be avoided since it is proprietary. There are plenty of free programs +for editing images, such as the GIMP.

+ + + +

“Piracy”

+ +

+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.) +

+

+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.”

+ +

+A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement, +recognized that +“piracy” +and “theft” are smear words.

+ + + +

“PowerPoint”

+ +

+Please avoid using the term “PowerPoint” to mean any kind +of slide presentation. “PowerPoint” is just the name of +one particular proprietary program to make presentations. For your +freedom's sake, you should use only free software to make your +presentations—which means, not PowerPoint. Recommended +options include LaTeX's beamer class and LibreOffice +Impress.

+ + + +

“Product”

+ +

+If you're talking about a product, by all means call it that. +However, when referring to a service, please do not call it a +“product.” If a service provider calls the service a +“product,” please firmly insist on calling it a +“service.” If a service provider calls a package deal a +“product,” please firmly insist on calling it a +“deal.” +

+ + + +

“Protection”

+ +

+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.

+

+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.”

+

+Likewise, instead of saying, “protected by copyright,” you +can say, “covered by copyright” or just +“copyrighted.”

+

+If you want to criticize copyright rather than be neutral, you can +use the term “copyright restrictions.” Thus, you can say, +“Copyright restrictions last a very long time.”

+ +

+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.

+ + + +

“RAND (Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory)”

+ +

+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.”

+

+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.

+

+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.

+

+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.

+ + + +

“SaaS” or “Software as a Service”

+ +

+We used to say that SaaS (short for “Software as a +Service”) is an injustice, but then we found that there was a +lot of variation in people's understanding of which activities count +as SaaS. So we switched to a new term, “Service as a Software +Substitute” or “SaaSS.” This term has two +advantages: it wasn't used before, so our definition is the only one, +and it explains what the injustice consists of.

+

+See Who +Does That Server Really Serve? for discussion of this +issue.

+

+In Spanish we continue to use the term “software como +servicio” because the joke of “software como ser +vicio” (“software, as being pernicious”) is too good +to give up.

+ + + +

“Sell software”

+ +

+The term “sell software” is ambiguous. Strictly speaking, +exchanging a copy of a free program for a sum of money +is selling the program, and +there is nothing wrong with doing that. However, people usually +associate the term “selling software” with proprietary +restrictions on the subsequent use of the software. You can be clear, +and prevent confusion, by saying either “distributing copies of +a program for a fee” or “imposing proprietary restrictions +on the use of a program.”

+

+See Selling Free Software for +further discussion of this issue.

+ + + +

“Sharing (personal data)”

+ +

+When companies manipulate or lure people into revealing personal data +and thus ceding their privacy, please don't refer to this as +“sharing.” We use the term “sharing” to refer +to noncommercial cooperation, including noncommercial redistribution +of exact copies of published works, and we say this is good. +Please don't apply that word to a practice which is harmful and dangerous.

+ + + +

“Sharing economy”

+ +

+The term “sharing economy” is not a good way to refer to +services such as Uber and Airbnb that arrange business transactions +between people. We use the term “sharing” to refer to +noncommercial cooperation, including noncommercial redistribution of +exact copies of published works. Stretching the word +“sharing” to include these transactions undermines its +meaning, so we don't use it in this context.

+

+A more suitable term for businesses like Uber is the +“piecework service economy.”

+ + + +

“Skype”

+ +

+Please avoid using the term “skype” as a verb, meaning any +kind of video communication or telephony over the Internet in general. +“Skype” is just the name of one particular proprietary +program, one that +spies on its users. If you want to make video and voice calls over the +Internet in a way that respects both your freedom and your privacy, try +one of the +numerous free Skype replacements.

+ + + +

“Software Industry”

+ +

+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.

+

+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 +European Parliament, rejecting software patents in 2003, voted to +define “industry” as “automated production of +material goods.”

+ + + +

“Source model”

+ +

+Wikipedia uses the term “source model” in a confused and +ambiguous way. Ostensibly it refers to how a program's source is +distributed, but the text confuses this with the development +methodology. It distinguishes “open source” and +”shared source” as answers, but they overlap — +Microsoft uses the latter as a marketing term to cover a range of +practices, some of which are “open source”. Thus, this +term really conveys no coherent information, but it provides an +opportunity to say “open source” in pages describing free +software programs.

+ + + + + + +

“Terminal”

+ + +

Mobile phones and tablets are computers, and people should be +able to do their computing on them using free software. +To call them “terminals” supposes that all they are good for +is to connect to servers, which is a bad way to do your own computing.

+ + + + +

“Theft”

+ +

+The supporters of a too-strict, repressive form of copyright often use +words like “stolen” and “theft” to refer to +copyright infringement. This is spin, but they would like you to take +it for objective truth.

+

+Under the US legal system, copyright infringement is not theft. + +Laws about theft are not applicable to copyright infringement. +The supporters of repressive copyright are making an appeal to +authority—and misrepresenting what authority says.

+

+To refute them, you can point to this + +real case which shows what can properly be described as +“copyright theft.”

+

+Unauthorized copying is forbidden by copyright law in many +circumstances (not all!), but being forbidden doesn't make it wrong. +In general, laws don't define right and wrong. Laws, at their best, +attempt to implement justice. If the laws (the implementation) don't +fit our ideas of right and wrong (the spec), the laws are what should +change.

+ +

+A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement, +recognized that +“piracy” +and “theft” are smear-words.

+ + + +

“Trusted Computing”

+ +

+“Trusted computing” is +the proponents' name for a scheme to redesign computers so that +application developers can trust your computer to obey them instead of +you. From their point of view, it is “trusted”; from your +point of view, it is “treacherous.” +

+ + + +

“Vendor”

+ +

+Please don't use the term “vendor” to refer generally to +anyone that develops or packages software. Many programs +are developed in order to sell copies, and their developers are +therefore their vendors; this even includes some free software packages. +However, many programs are developed by volunteers or organizations +which do not intend to sell copies. These developers are not vendors. +Likewise, only some of the packagers of GNU/Linux distributions are +vendors. We recommend the general term “supplier” instead. +

+ + +
+

This essay is published +in Free +Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard +M. Stallman.

+ + + + + + + -- cgit v1.2.3