first

1 files changed, 964 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/docs/words-to-avoid.md b/docs/words-to-avoid.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ebd64fd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/words-to-avoid.md
@@ -0,0 +1,964 @@
+---
+Generator: 'texi2html 1.82'
+description: Untitled Document
+distribution: global
+keywords: Untitled Document
+resource-type: document
+title: Untitled Document
+...
+
+1. Words to Avoid (or Use with Care)\
+Because They Are Loaded or Confusing {#words-to-avoid-or-use-with-care-becausetheyareloadedorconfusing .chapter}
+=====================================
+
+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. (See also “Categories of Free and Nonfree
+Software” (@pageref{Categories}) and “Why Call It the Swindle?”
+(@pageref{Swindle}).)
+
+### “Access” {#access .subheading}
+
+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[(1)](#FOOT1) is not about who has
+“access” to the program; the four essential freedoms concern what a user
+that has a copy of the program can 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.
+
+@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 1996–1999,
+2001–2004, 2007–2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\
+ {This list was first published on <http://gnu.org>, in 1996. This
+version is part of @fsfsthreecite}
+
+In particular, if you write a program yourself and never offer a copy to
+anyone else, that program is free software (in a trivial way) because
+you (the sole user that has it) have the four essential freedoms.
+
+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 this 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.
+
+### “Alternative” {#alternative .subheading}
+
+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 {@parfillskip=0pt@par Service as a Software Substitute
+subjugate their users.[(2)](#FOOT2) We do not think it is good to offer
+users those “alternatives” to free software.
+
+### “BSD-Style” {#bsd-style .subheading}
+
+The expression “BSD-style license” leads to confusion because it lumps
+together licenses that have important differences.[(3)](#FOOT3) 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[(4)](#FOOT4) and avoid the vague term “BSD-style.”
+
+### “Closed” {#closed .subheading}
+
+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.[(5)](#FOOT5) For
+instance, we avoid describing nonfree software as “closed.” We call it
+“nonfree” or “proprietary.”[(6)](#FOOT6)
+
+### “Cloud Computing” {#cloud-computing .subheading}
+
+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.
+
+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 discussion is 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.[(7)](#FOOT7)
+
+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.[(8)](#FOOT8)
+
+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” [(9)](#FOOT9) 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.”[(10)](#FOOT10) 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” {#commercial .subheading}
+
+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” {#compensation .subheading}
+
+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,[(11)](#FOOT11) 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 .subheading}
+
+“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 simply an error. Playing a
+recording, or running a program, does not consume it.
+
+The term “consume” is associated with the economics of uncopyable
+material products, and leads people to transfer its conclusions
+unconsciously to copyable digital works—an error that proprietary
+software developers (and other publishers) dearly wish to encourage.
+Their twisted viewpoint comes through clearly in a Business Insider
+article,[(12)](#FOOT12) 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 acceptation of “streaming” services, which use
+DRM to limit use of digital recordings to a form that fits the word
+“consume.”
+
+Why is this perverse usage spreading? Some may feel that the term sounds
+sophisticated; if that attracts you, rejecting it with cogent reasons
+can appear even more sophisticated. 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 products rather than as art. If you don’t want to
+spread that attitude, you would do well to reject using the term
+“consume” for them. We recommend saying that someone “experiences” an
+artistic work or a work stating a point of view, and that someone “uses”
+a practical work.
+
+### “Consumer” {#consumer .subheading}
+
+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 copyable digital works the economic
+conclusions that were drawn about uncopyable 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.[(13)](#FOOT13)
+
+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.[(14)](#FOOT14)
+
+### “Content” {#content .subheading}
+
+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. (See Courtney Love’s open letter
+to Steve Case[(15)](#FOOT15) and search for “content provider” in that
+page. Alas, Ms. Love is unaware that the term “intellectual property” is
+also biased and confusing.[(16)](#FOOT16))
+
+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).
+
+### “Creative Commons Licensed” {#creative-commons-licensed .subheading}
+
+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” {#creator .subheading}
+
+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” {#digital-goods .subheading}
+
+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 .subheading}
+
+“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[(17)](#FOOT17) 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 .subheading}
+
+“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.”
+
+@raggedright Please sign up to support our campaign to abolish DRM, at
+[DefectiveByDesign.org](DefectiveByDesign.org). @end raggedright
+
+### “Ecosystem” {#ecosystem .subheading}
+
+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” {#floss .subheading}
+
+The term “FLOSS,” meaning “Free/Libre and Open Source Software,” was
+coined as a way to be neutral between free software and open
+source.[(18)](#FOOT18) 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” {#for-free .subheading}
+
+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” {#foss .subheading}
+
+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.[(19)](#FOOT19) If neutrality is your goal,
+“FLOSS” is better. But if you want to show you stand for freedom, don’t
+use a neutral term.
+
+### “Freely Available” {#freely-available .subheading}
+
+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” {#freeware .subheading}
+
+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 @pageref{FS
+Translations} 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” {#give-away-software .subheading}
+
+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” {#google .subheading}
+
+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 “web search”
+instead. Try to use a search engine that respects your privacy;
+DuckDuckGo claims not to track its users,[(20)](#FOOT20) although we
+cannot confirm.
+
+### “Hacker” {#hacker .subheading}
+
+A hacker is someone who enjoys playful cleverness[(21)](#FOOT21)—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” {#intellectual-property .subheading}
+
+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.[(22)](#FOOT22)
+
+### “LAMP System” {#lamp-system .subheading}
+
+“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-system .subheading}
+
+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.[(23)](#FOOT23)
+
+### “Market” {#market .subheading}
+
+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.
+
+### “Monetize” {#monetize .subheading}
+
+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.
+
+### “MP3Player” {#mp3player .subheading}
+
+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 privileges the MP3 that we ought to reject. We suggest the terms
+“digital audio player,” or simply “audio player” if context permits.
+
+### “Open” {#open .subheading}
+
+Please avoid using the term “open” or “open source” as a substitute for
+“free software.” Those terms refer to a different
+position[(24)](#FOOT24) 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” {#pc .subheading}
+
+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” {#photoshop .subheading}
+
+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.[(25)](#FOOT25)
+
+### “Piracy” {#piracy .subheading}
+
+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.[(26)](#FOOT26)
+
+### “PowerPoint” {#powerpoint .subheading}
+
+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. Recommended
+options include TeX’s `beamer` class and OpenOffice.org’s Impress.
+
+### “Protection” {#protection .subheading}
+
+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, at [DefectiveByDesign.org](DefectiveByDesign.org).
+
+### “RAND (Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory)” {#rand-reasonable-and-non-discriminatory .subheading}
+
+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” {#saas-or-software-as-a-service .subheading}
+
+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?” (@pageref{Server}) for
+discussion of this issue.
+
+In Spanish we continue to use the term “software como servicio” because
+the joke of “software como ser vicio”[(27)](#FOOT27) is too good to give
+up.
+
+### “Sell Software” {#sell-software .subheading}
+
+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” (@pageref{Selling}) for further discussion
+of this issue.
+
+### “Sharing Economy” {#sharing-economy .subheading}
+
+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” {#skype .subheading}
+
+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.[(28)](#FOOT28) 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, at
+<https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:Skype_Replacement>.
+
+### “Software Industry” {#software-industry .subheading}
+
+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.”[(29)](#FOOT29)
+
+### “Source Model” {#source-model .subheading}
+
+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” {#terminal .subheading}
+
+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” {#theft .subheading}
+
+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.[(30)](#FOOT30) 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.[(31)](#FOOT31)
+
+### “Trusted Computing” {#trusted-computing .subheading}
+
+“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.[(32)](#FOOT32) From their point of view, it is
+“trusted”; from your point of view, it is “treacherous.”
+
+### “Vendor” {#vendor .subheading}
+
+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.
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+### Footnotes
+
+### [(1)](#DOCF1)
+
+@raggedright See @pageref{Definition} for the full definition of free
+software. @end raggedright
+
+### [(2)](#DOCF2)
+
+@raggedright See “Free Software Is Even More Important Now”
+(@pageref{More Important Now}) and “Who Does That Server Really Serve?”
+(@pageref{Server}) for more on this. @end raggedright
+
+### [(3)](#DOCF3)
+
+@raggedright See “The BSD License Problem,” at
+<http://gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html>. @end raggedright
+
+### [(4)](#DOCF4)
+
+@raggedright See “Various Licenses and Comments about Them,” at\
+<http://gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html>. @end raggedright
+
+### [(5)](#DOCF5)
+
+@raggedright See “Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software”
+(@pageref{OS Misses Point}). @end raggedright
+
+### [(6)](#DOCF6)
+
+@raggedright See @pageref{Category Proprietary Software} for more on
+proprietary software. @end raggedright
+
+### [(7)](#DOCF7)
+
+@raggedright John Harris, “Why Hackers and Spooks Want Our Heads in the
+Cloud,” 25 April 2011,
+[http://guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/25/hackers-\
+spooks-cloud-antiauthoritarian-dream](http://guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/25/hackers-%3Cbr%3Espooks-cloud-antiauthoritarian-dream).
+@end raggedright
+
+### [(8)](#DOCF8)
+
+@raggedright See “Who Does That Server Really Serve?” (@pageref{Server})
+for more on this issue. @end raggedright
+
+### [(9)](#DOCF9)
+
+@raggedright Peter Mell and Anthony Grance, “The NIST Definition of
+Cloud Computing: Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards
+and Technology,” NIST Special Publication 800-145 (September 2011),
+[http://csrc.nist.gov/\
+publications/nistpubs/800-145/SP800-145.pdf](http://csrc.nist.gov/%3Cbr%3Epublications/nistpubs/800-145/SP800-145.pdf).
+@end raggedright
+
+### [(10)](#DOCF10)
+
+@raggedright Dan Farber, “Oracle’s Ellison Nails Cloud Computing,”
+26 September 2008, <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13953_3-10052188-80.html>.
+@end raggedright @vglue -1pc
+
+### [(11)](#DOCF11)
+
+@raggedright See “Misinterpreting Copyright” (@pageref{Mis Cop}) for
+more on this. @end raggedright
+
+### [(12)](#DOCF12)
+
+@raggedright Lara O’Reilly, “A Former Googler Has Declared War on Ad
+Blockers with a New Startup That Tackles Them in an Unorthodox Way,”
+18 June 2015, [http://uk.\
+businessinsider.com/former-google-exec-launches-sourcepoint-with-10-\
+million-series-a-funding-2015-6?r=US&IR=T](http://uk.%3Cbr%3Ebusinessinsider.com/former-google-exec-launches-sourcepoint-with-10-%3Cbr%3Emillion-series-a-funding-2015-6?r=US&IR=T).
+@end raggedright @vglue -1pc
+
+### [(13)](#DOCF13)
+
+@raggedright See “Free Software Is Even More Important Now”
+(@pageref{More Important Now}) for more on this. @end raggedright
+
+### [(14)](#DOCF14)
+
+@raggedright Owen Hatherley, “Be a User, Not a Consumer: How Capitalism
+Has Changed Our Language,” 11 August 2013,
+[http://theguardian.com/commentisfree/\
+2013/aug/11/capitalism-language-raymond-williams](http://theguardian.com/commentisfree/%3Cbr%3E2013/aug/11/capitalism-language-raymond-williams).
+@end raggedright @vglue -1pc
+
+### [(15)](#DOCF15)
+
+@raggedright An unedited transcript of American rock musician Courtney
+Love’s 16 May 2000 speech to the Digital Hollywood online-entertainment
+conference is available at <http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/>.
+@end raggedright @vglue -1pc
+
+### [(16)](#DOCF16)
+
+@raggedright See @pageref{WtA IPR} for the reason why. @end raggedright
+
+### [(17)](#DOCF17)
+
+@raggedright Cory Doctorow, “Encryption Won’t Work If It Has a Back Door
+Only the ‘Good Guys’ Have Keys To,” 1 May 2015,
+[http://theguardian.com/technology/2015/\
+may/01/encryption-wont-work-if-it-has-a-back-door-only-the-good-guys-\
+have-keys-to-](http://theguardian.com/technology/2015/%3Cbr%3Emay/01/encryption-wont-work-if-it-has-a-back-door-only-the-good-guys-%3Cbr%3Ehave-keys-to-).
+@end raggedright
+
+### [(18)](#DOCF18)
+
+@raggedright See <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html> for
+more on this. @end raggedright
+
+### [(19)](#DOCF19)
+
+@raggedright See previous footnote. @end raggedright
+
+### [(20)](#DOCF20)
+
+@raggedright “DuckDuckGo Privacy Policy,” last modified on
+11 April 2012,\
+ <https://duckduckgo.com/privacy>. @end raggedright
+
+### [(21)](#DOCF21)
+
+@raggedright See my article “On Hacking,” at
+<http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html>. @end raggedright @vglue
+-1pc
+
+### [(22)](#DOCF22)
+
+@raggedright Richard Stallman, “Public Awareness of Copyright, WIPO,
+June 2002,”\
+ last updated in 2014, [http://gnu.org/philosophy/\
+wipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html](http://gnu.org/philosophy/%3Cbr%3Ewipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html).
+@end raggedright
+
+### [(23)](#DOCF23)
+
+@raggedright See also “Linux and the GNU System” (@pageref{Linux and
+GNU}) for more on the history of the GNU/Linux system as it relates to
+this issue of naming. @end raggedright
+
+### [(24)](#DOCF24)
+
+@raggedright See “Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software”
+(@pageref{OS Misses Point}) for a complete explanation. @end raggedright
+
+### [(25)](#DOCF25)
+
+@raggedright See <http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/GIMP>. @end raggedright
+
+### [(26)](#DOCF26)
+
+@raggedright Ernesto Van der Sar, “MPAA Banned from Using Piracy and
+Theft Terms in Hotfile Trial,” 29 November 2013,
+[http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-\
+from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129](http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-%3Cbr%3Efrom-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129).
+@end raggedright
+
+### [(27)](#DOCF27)
+
+@raggedright “software, as being pernicious” (*sp.*) @end raggedright
+
+### [(28)](#DOCF28)
+
+@raggedright See
+[http://gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary-surveillance.html\#\
+SpywareInSkype](http://gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary-surveillance.html#%3Cbr%3ESpywareInSkype)
+for more on this. @end raggedright
+
+### [(29)](#DOCF29)
+
+@raggedright European Parliament, “Directive on the Patentability of
+Computer-Implemented Inventions,” 24 September 2003,
+[http://web.archive.org/web/\
+20071222001014/http://www.swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309](http://web.archive.org/web/%3Cbr%3E20071222001014/http://www.swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309).
+@end raggedright @vglue -1pc
+
+### [(30)](#DOCF30)
+
+@raggedright To refute them, you can point to the real case of Harper
+Lee suing her agent for allegedly duping her into assigning him the
+copyright on To Kill a Mockingbird. @end raggedright
+
+### [(31)](#DOCF31)
+
+@raggedright See footnote 25, on @pageref{Piracy}. @end raggedright
+
+### [(32)](#DOCF32)
+
+@raggedright See “Can You Trust Your Computer?” (@pageref{Can You
+Trust}) for more on this issue. @end raggedright
+
+</div>
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using
+[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\