From 5d6f7b414de4b04ddc19629ac6d1f5e5f3cb42ac Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tong Hui Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 16:52:03 +0800 Subject: first --- docs/words-to-avoid.md | 964 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 964 insertions(+) create mode 100644 docs/words-to-avoid.md (limited to 'docs/words-to-avoid.md') 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 , 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 +. + +### “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. + +
+ +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### 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 +. @end raggedright + +### [(4)](#DOCF4) + +@raggedright See “Various Licenses and Comments about Them,” at\ +. @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, . +@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 . +@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 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,\ + . @end raggedright + +### [(21)](#DOCF21) + +@raggedright See my article “On Hacking,” at +. @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 . @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 + +
+ +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ -- cgit v1.2.3