summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_16.html
blob: e27cc40aa2d050c496f5ddb71e1d1aa3901cc279 (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
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"/>