path: root/docs/words-to-avoid.md

---
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}
=====================================

应避免使用（或慎用）的词语，由于它们是不公正的或者引起混淆的
============================================================

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}).)

有些单词或短语是我们建议避免使用或者避免在特定上下文或应用场景使用的。其中的一些词语具有歧义或误导性；而其他一些词语则预设了某种我们所不赞同的观点，并且我们希望您也不会同意那些观点。（参见“Categories of Free and Nonfree Software” (@pageref{Categories}) 和 “Why Call It the Swindle?” (@pageref{Swindle})两篇文章。）

### “Access” {#access .subheading}

### 可获得性（Access）

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

有一种普遍的误解认为，自由软件意味着公众必须可以获得某一程序。这并非自由软件的本意。

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.

自由软件的准则[(1)](#FOOT1)并不是关于谁能够获得某一程序的；四项基本自由所关注的是拥有它的一份副本的用户可以用它做什么。例如，自由之二称该用户拥有为其复制一份副本并且送给或卖给您的自由。但是任何用户都没有为您复制副本的义务；并且您也没有权利强行要求任何用户为您提供副本。

@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip 著作权所有 (C) 1996–1999，2001–2004，2007–2015，自由软件基金会。{本列单最初于 1996 年发表于 <http://gnu.org>，此版本是 @fsfsthreecite 的一部分。}

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.

特别地，如果您为您自己编写了一个程序并且从不向任何人提供副本，该程序也是自由软件（尽管是在一种平凡的意义上），由于您（作为拥有它的唯一用户）拥有四项基本自由。

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.

事实上，当很多用户拥有某一程序的副本时，某些人确实会将其发布到万维网上，并且供其他人访问。我们认为人们应当如此做，如果该程序确实有用。但这并非自由软件的强制要求。

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.

确实有一种特殊情况，此时是否拥有可获得性与自由软件直接相关：GNU 通用公共许可证（GNU GPL）允许赋予一位特定用户下载程序源代码的访问权，作为以实物载体的形式为该用户提供源代码副本的替代方案。这条规则也适用于用户已经拥有一份非源代码形式的副本这一特例。

### “Alternative” {#alternative .subheading}

### 可选择物（Alternative）

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

我们从不将自由软件描述为私有软件之外的可选择物，由于这一单词假设所有“可选择物”都是合法的，并且每增加一种“可选择物”都对用户有利。事实上，这一单词假设自由软件应该和那些不尊重用户自由的软件共存。

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.

我们坚信以自由软件形式发布是发布软件以供他人使用的唯一符合伦理的当时。而其他方式，不论是私有软件还是“服务作为软件替代品”（SaaSS）都会迫使用户屈从。[(2)](#FOOT2)因此我们认为不向用户提供这些自由软件之外的“可选择物”才是好的。

### “BSD-Style” {#bsd-style .subheading}

### BSD 风格（BSD-Style）

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.

“BSD 风格许可证”这一表述将会引起混淆，由于它将具有显著不同的许可证混为一谈。[(3)](#FOOT3)例如，最初的 BSD 许可证由于带有广告条款从而与 GNU GPL 不兼容，但是改进过的 BSD 许可证与 GPL 兼容。

To avoid confusion, it is best to name the specific license in
question[(4)](#FOOT4) and avoid the vague term “BSD-style.”

为了避免混淆，最好在谈论中明确给出许可证的名字[(4)](#FOOT4)并且避免使用含混不清的短语“BSD 风格”。

### “Closed” {#closed .subheading}

### 闭源（Closed）

Describing nonfree software as “closed” clearly refers to the term “open
source.” In the free software movement, we do not want to be confused
with the open source camp, so we are careful to avoid saying things that
would encourage people to lump us in with them.[(5)](#FOOT5) For
instance, we avoid describing nonfree software as “closed.” We call it
“nonfree” or “proprietary.”[(6)](#FOOT6)

将私有软件描述为“闭源”很明显是与“开源”概念相对。在自由软件运动中，我们不希望被别人同开源阵营混为一谈，因此我们谨慎地避免使用那种促使人们将我们与他们混在一起的表达方式。[(5)](#FOOT5)例如，我们避免将非自由软件描述为“闭源”，我们称之为非自由或私有。[(6)](#FOOT6)

### “Cloud Computing” {#cloud-computing .subheading}

### 云计算（Cloud Computing）

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

“云计算”这一短语（或者在表示计算的上下文中进一步简称为“云”）是一种含混不清的市场化流行语，它没有任何合乎逻辑的涵义。它被用于指代一系列不同的活动，其唯一的共同点是它们都使用万维网进行文件传输以外的事情。因此，这一短语是在散布混淆。如果您基于它进行思考，您的思考将会是混乱的。

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.

当您思考或是回应一个由他人提出的并且使用这一概念的论述时，第一步是要澄清话题。该论述是关于什么场景的？适用于此场景的恰当并且清晰的概念是什么？只有当话题被清晰阐述之时，合乎逻辑的讨论才是可能的。

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)

“云计算”的众多可能的涵义之一是将您的数据存储于在线服务上。在大多数场景中，这是愚蠢的做法，由于这使您暴露在监控之下。[(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)

另一种可能的涵义（与上一条有所重叠但又不完全相同）是“服务作为软件替代品”（SaaSS），它拒绝了您对于您自己的计算的控制权。您应该从不使用 SaaSS。[(8)](#FOOT8)

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

另一种可能的涵义包括租赁远程的实体或虚拟服务器。这些实践在某些特定环境下是可以接受的。

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

另一种可能的涵义是通过您自己的移动设备访问您自己的服务器。这并不会产生特别的伦理问题。

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.

美国国家标准技术研究所（NIST）为“云计算”的定义[(9)](#FOOT9)提出了三种场景，它们会带来不同的伦理问题：软件即服务（SaaS）、平台即服务（PaaS）、基础设施即服务（IaaS）。然而，这种定义与“云计算”通常的用法并不匹配，由于它并未包括向在线服务中存储数据。由 NIST 定义的 SaaS 在很大程度上与 SaaSS 重叠，后者虐待它的用户，但这两个概念并不等同。

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.

这些不同的计算实践甚至不属于同一个讨论范围。避免使用“云计算”这一概念所带来的混淆的最佳方式是不使用术语“云”与计算相关联。只谈论您想要表达的话题，并且以一种具体的概念称呼它。

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.

有趣的是，Larry Ellison，一位私有软件开发者也注意到了“云计算”这一概念的空泛性。[(10)](#FOOT10)他决定仍然使用这一概念，由于作为一位私有软件开发者，此人与我们不是由相同理念所驱使的。

### “Commercial” {#commercial .subheading}

### 商业（Commercial）

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

请不要将“商业”用作“非自由”的同义词。这将两种完全不同的问题混为一谈。

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.

一个程序称为商业软件，如果它是作为一种商业行为而被开发的。一个商业软件可以是自由或非自由的，取决于他的发布方式。类似地，由学校或个人开发的程序也可以是自由或非自由的，取决于它的发布方式。这两个问题——程序由何种实体开发，以及它的用户应当拥有什么自由——是不相关的。

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.

在自由软件运动的最初十年，自由软件包几乎都是非商业的；GNU/Linux 操作系统的组件由个人或者诸如自由软件基金会（FSF）和大学的非盈利性组织所开发。其后，在 20 世纪 90 年代，自由的商业软件开始出现。

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.

自由的商业软件是对我们的社区的贡献，因此我们应当鼓励。但是那些认为“商业”等同于“非自由”的人们倾向于认为“自由商业”的组合是自相矛盾的并且否定其可能性。让我们小心对待，不要以这种方式使用“商业”一词。

### “Compensation” {#compensation .subheading}

### 补偿（Compensation）

To speak of “compensation for authors” in connection with copyright
carries the assumptions that (1) copyright exists for the sake of
authors and (2) whenever we read something, we take on a debt to the
author which we must then repay. The first assumption is simply
false,[(11)](#FOOT11) and the second is outrageous.

当与版权联系在一起的时候谈论“补偿作者”将会带来以下两种假设：（1）版权是以作者之名而存在的；以及（2）每当我们阅读任何东西的时候，我们已经欠下了作者一笔债务并且必须补偿这笔债务。第一个假设是错误的[(11)](#FOOT11)，而第二个假设是不可容忍的。

“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.

而“补偿版权持有人”的鬼话在此基础上又附加了一层诈骗：您很可能认为这是在补偿作者，尽管在少数情况下确实是这样，但是绝大多数情况下这是在补偿出版商，正是那些对我们强行施加不平等法律的出版商。

### “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/).\