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 --- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_16.html | 961 ------------------------ 1 file changed, 961 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_16.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_16.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_16.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_16.html deleted file mode 100644 index e27cc40..0000000 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_16.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,961 +0,0 @@ - - - - - -

- 16. 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 hope you disagree -with. (See also “Categories of Free and Nonfree Software,” on -p. @refx{Categories-pg}{.) -

- - -

- 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.” -

-

- @vglue -13pt@null - - -

-

- Cloud Computing -

- - -

- 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. -

-

- 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. -

-

- Curiously, - - - Larry Ellison, a proprietary software - - - developer, also noted the vacuity of the term “cloud -computing.” - - (32) - - 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. -

- - -

- 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. -

- - -

- Consumer -

- - -

- 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. -

-

- 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. -

-

- 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. -

-

- This kind of thinking leads to travesties like the - - - 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? -

-

- The shallow economic conception of users as “consumers” tends to go -hand in hand with the idea that published works are mere “content.” -

-

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

- - -

- 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 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. -

-

- 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 - - - Courtney -Love’s open letter to - - - Steve Case - - (33) - - 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). -

- - -

- 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. -

- - -

- Digital Goods -

- - -

- 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. -

- - -

- Digital Rights Management -

- - - - -

- “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. -

-

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

- - -

- Ecosystem -

- - -

- 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. -

-

- The term “ecosystem” implicitly suggests an attitude of -nonjudgmental observation: don’t ask how what - - should - - happen, -just study and explain what - - does - - 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. -

-

- 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. -

- - -

- 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.” -

- - -

- 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. (Please -see p. @refx{FS Translations-pg}{ for a list of recommended unambiguous -translations for the term “free software” into various languages.) -

-

- 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.” -

- - -

- Hacker -

- - - - - - -

- A hacker is someone who enjoys playful cleverness - - (34) - - —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. -

- - -

- 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’ -efforts for mere success is to deny the importance of freedom and -legitimize proprietary software. -

- - -

- MP3 Player -

- - - - - - - - -

- 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. -

- - -

- Open -

- - -

- 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. -

-

- 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. -

- - -

- 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 -alternatives, such as - - - - - 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.” -

- - -

- 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, and there are plenty of -free alternatives, such as - - - TeX’s - - - - beamer - - class -and - - - OpenOffice.org’s - - - Impress. -

- - -

- 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.” -

-

- 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.” -

-

- 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 - - http://www.defectivebydesign.org - - . -

- - -

- 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. -

- - -

- Sell Software -

- - -

- 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. -

-

- See “Selling Free Software” (p. @refx{Selling-pg}{) for further -discussion of this issue. -

- - -

- 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, - - (35) - - voted to define “industry” as “automated -production of material goods.” -

- - -

- Theft -

- - -

- 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. -

-

- 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. -

-

- 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. -

- - -

- 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. -

- - - - -
-
-

- Footnotes -

-

- - (32) - -

-

- Dan Farber, “Oracle’s Ellison Nails Cloud -Computing,” 26 September 2008, - - http://news.cnet.com/8301-13953_3-10052188-80.html - - . -@vglue -1pc -

-

- - (33) - -

-

- 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 - - http://salon.com/technology/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html - - . -@vglue -1pc -

-

- - (34) - -

-

- See my -article, “On Hacking,” at - - http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html - - . -@vglue -1pc -

-

- - (35) - -

-

- “Directive on the patentability of -computer-implemented inventions,” 24 September 2003, - - http://eupat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309 - - . -@vglue -1pc -

- -
-
- -- cgit v1.2.3