[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy free-sw.nl.html stallmans-law.hr...
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy free-sw.nl.html stallmans-law.hr... |
|
Date: |
Sat, 25 Feb 2017 13:29:24 -0500 (EST) |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 17/02/25 13:29:24
Modified files:
philosophy : free-sw.nl.html stallmans-law.hr.html
surveillance-vs-democracy.nl.html
words-to-avoid.it.html
words-to-avoid.pt-br.html
philosophy/po : free-sw.nl-diff.html
surveillance-vs-democracy.nl-diff.html
Added files:
philosophy/po : stallmans-law.hr-diff.html
words-to-avoid.it-diff.html
words-to-avoid.pt-br-diff.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-sw.nl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.26&r2=1.27
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/stallmans-law.hr.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.5&r2=1.6
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.nl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.5&r2=1.6
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/words-to-avoid.it.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.88&r2=1.89
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/words-to-avoid.pt-br.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.5&r2=1.6
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-sw.nl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.32&r2=1.33
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/surveillance-vs-democracy.nl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.10&r2=1.11
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/stallmans-law.hr-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.it-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.pt-br-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: free-sw.nl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-sw.nl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.26
retrieving revision 1.27
diff -u -b -r1.26 -r1.27
--- free-sw.nl.html 21 Nov 2016 19:57:37 -0000 1.26
+++ free-sw.nl.html 25 Feb 2017 18:29:23 -0000 1.27
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-sw.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/free-sw.nl.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/free-sw.nl.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/free-sw.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/free-sw.nl-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2016-12-27" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-sw.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.nl.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
@@ -14,6 +19,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-sw.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.nl.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.nl.html" -->
<h2>Wat is vrije software?</h2>
<h3>De definitie van Vrije Software</h3>
@@ -633,7 +639,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Bijgewerkt:
-$Date: 2016/11/21 19:57:37 $
+$Date: 2017/02/25 18:29:23 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: stallmans-law.hr.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/stallmans-law.hr.html,v
retrieving revision 1.5
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -b -r1.5 -r1.6
--- stallmans-law.hr.html 23 May 2015 05:09:21 -0000 1.5
+++ stallmans-law.hr.html 25 Feb 2017 18:29:23 -0000 1.6
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/stallmans-law.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/stallmans-law.hr.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/stallmans-law.hr.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/stallmans-law.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/stallmans-law.hr-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2016-12-27" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/stallmans-law.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.hr.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -8,6 +13,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/stallmans-law.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.hr.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.hr.html" -->
<h2>Stallmanov zakon</h2>
<p>Sve dok korporacije dominiraju društvom i pišu zakone, svaki tehnološki
@@ -87,7 +93,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Vrijeme zadnje izmjene:
-$Date: 2015/05/23 05:09:21 $
+$Date: 2017/02/25 18:29:23 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: surveillance-vs-democracy.nl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.nl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.5
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -b -r1.5 -r1.6
--- surveillance-vs-democracy.nl.html 24 Nov 2016 06:01:02 -0000 1.5
+++ surveillance-vs-democracy.nl.html 25 Feb 2017 18:29:23 -0000 1.6
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/surveillance-vs-democracy.nl.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/surveillance-vs-democracy.nl.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/surveillance-vs-democracy.nl-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2016-12-27" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.nl.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
@@ -20,6 +25,7 @@
<!-- GNUN: localize URL /graphics/dog.small.jpg -->
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/surveillance-vs-democracy.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.nl.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.nl.html" -->
<h2 class="center">Hoeveel controle kan onze democratie verdragen?</h2>
<p class="byline center">door <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";>Richard
Stallman</a></p>
@@ -624,7 +630,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Bijgewerkt:
-$Date: 2016/11/24 06:01:02 $
+$Date: 2017/02/25 18:29:23 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: words-to-avoid.it.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/words-to-avoid.it.html,v
retrieving revision 1.88
retrieving revision 1.89
diff -u -b -r1.88 -r1.89
--- words-to-avoid.it.html 8 Oct 2016 21:29:02 -0000 1.88
+++ words-to-avoid.it.html 25 Feb 2017 18:29:23 -0000 1.89
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.it.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.it.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.it-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2016-12-27" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.it.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.it.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.it.html" -->
<h2>Termini da evitare (o usare con cura) perché imprecisi o fuorvianti</h2>
<p>
@@ -1278,7 +1284,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ultimo aggiornamento:
-$Date: 2016/10/08 21:29:02 $
+$Date: 2017/02/25 18:29:23 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: words-to-avoid.pt-br.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/words-to-avoid.pt-br.html,v
retrieving revision 1.5
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -b -r1.5 -r1.6
--- words-to-avoid.pt-br.html 19 Oct 2016 16:58:19 -0000 1.5
+++ words-to-avoid.pt-br.html 25 Feb 2017 18:29:23 -0000 1.6
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.pt-br.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.pt-br.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.pt-br-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2016-12-27" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.pt-br.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pt-br.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pt-br.html" -->
<h2>Palavras para Evitar (ou Usar com Cuidado) Porque São Carregadas de
Sentido
ou Confusas</h2>
@@ -1274,7 +1280,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ãltima atualização:
-$Date: 2016/10/19 16:58:19 $
+$Date: 2017/02/25 18:29:23 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: po/free-sw.nl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/free-sw.nl-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.32
retrieving revision 1.33
diff -u -b -r1.32 -r1.33
--- po/free-sw.nl-diff.html 1 Jan 2016 10:30:14 -0000 1.32
+++ po/free-sw.nl-diff.html 25 Feb 2017 18:29:23 -0000 1.33
@@ -11,23 +11,29 @@
</style></head>
<body><pre>
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- Parent-Version: 1.77
--></em></ins></span>
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
<title>What is free software?
-- GNU Project - Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation
(FSF)</title></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation</title></em></ins></span>
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<meta http-equiv="Keywords" content="GNU, FSF, Free Software Foundation,
Linux, Emacs, GCC, Unix, Free Software, Operating System, GNU Kernel, HURD, GNU
HURD, Hurd" />
<meta http-equiv="Description" content="Since 1983, developing the free
Unix style operating system GNU, so that computer users can have the freedom to
share and improve the software they use." />
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><link rel="alternate" title="What's New"
href="http://www.gnu.org/rss/whatsnew.rss"; type="application/rss+xml" />
-<link rel="alternate" title="New Free Software"
href="http://www.gnu.org/rss/quagga.rss"; type="application/rss+xml"
/></strong></del></span>
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-sw.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<h2>What is free software?</h2>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/licenses/fsf-licensing.html" --></em></ins></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><blockquote class="note"
id="fsf-licensing"><p style="font-size: 80%">
+Have a question about free software licensing not answered here?
+See our other <a href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing">licensing
resources</a>,
+and if necessary contact the FSF Compliance Lab
+at <a href="mailto:address@hidden">address@hidden</a>.</p>
+</blockquote></em></ins></span>
<h3>The Free Software Definition</h3>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><!--#include
virtual="/licenses/fsf-licensing.html" --></strong></del></span>
+
<blockquote>
<p>
The free software definition presents the criteria for whether a
@@ -41,36 +47,29 @@
<p>
“Free software” means software that respects users'
-freedom and community. Roughly, <span class="inserted"><ins><em>it means
that</em></ins></span> <b>the users have the
+freedom and community. Roughly, it means that <b>the users have the
freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the
-software</b>. <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Thus, “free
software” is a matter of
+software</b>. Thus, “free software” is a matter of
liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of
“free” as in “free speech,” not as in
“free beer”. We sometimes call it “libre
-software” to show we do not mean it is gratis.
+software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for
+“free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software
+is gratis.
</p>
<p>
-We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves
them.</em></ins></span> With
+We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them. With
these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control
-the program and what it does for them.
-<span class="removed"><del><strong></p>
-
-<p></strong></del></span> When users don't control the
-program, <span class="removed"><del><strong>the</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>we call it a “nonfree” or
-“proprietary” program. The nonfree</em></ins></span> program
controls the <span class="removed"><del><strong>users.
-The</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>users, and the</em></ins></span> developer
controls the <span class="removed"><del><strong>program, and through it
controls</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>program; this
makes</em></ins></span> the <span class="removed"><del><strong>users.
-This nonfree or “proprietary”</strong></del></span>
-program <span class="removed"><del><strong>is therefore</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em><a
href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html"></em></ins></span>
-an instrument of unjust <span class="removed"><del><strong>power.
+the program and what it does for them. When users don't control the
+program, we call it a “nonfree” or
+“proprietary” program. The nonfree program controls the
+users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the
+program <a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">
+an instrument of unjust power</a>.
</p>
-<p>
-Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price.
-To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as
-in “free speech,” not as in “free
beer”.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>power</a>.</em></ins></span>
-</p>
+<h4> The four essential freedoms</h4>
<p>
A program is free software if the program's users have the
@@ -78,7 +77,7 @@
</p>
<ul>
- <li>The freedom to run the <span
class="removed"><del><strong>program,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>program as you wish,</em></ins></span>
+ <li>The freedom to run the program as you wish,
for any purpose (freedom 0).</li>
<li>The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it
does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source
@@ -95,9 +94,8 @@
</ul>
<p>
-A program is free software if <span class="inserted"><ins><em>it
gives</em></ins></span> users <span
class="removed"><del><strong>have</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>adequately</em></ins></span> all of these
-freedoms. <span class="removed"><del><strong>Thus,
-you should</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Otherwise,
it is nonfree. While we can distinguish various
+A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of these
+freedoms. Otherwise, it is nonfree. While we can distinguish various
nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of
being free, we consider them all equally unethical.</p>
@@ -107,25 +105,23 @@
handle some cases. If we plan to distribute A as it stands, that
implies users will need B, so we need to judge whether both A and B
are free. However, if we plan to modify A so that it doesn't use B,
-only A needs to</em></ins></span> be <span class="inserted"><ins><em>free; we
can ignore B.</p>
+only A needs to be free; B is not pertinent to that plan.</p>
+
+<p>
+“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial”. A free
+program must be available for commercial use, commercial development,
+and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software
+is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.
+You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have
+obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies,
+you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to
+<a href="/philosophy/selling.html">sell copies</a>.
+</p>
<p>The rest of this page clarifies certain points about what makes
specific freedoms adequate or not.</p>
-<p>Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you
are</em></ins></span> free to
-redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either
-gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to
-<a href="#exportcontrol">anyone anywhere</a>. Being free to do
these
-things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay
-for permission to do so.
-</p>
-
-<p>
-You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
-privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they
-exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to
-notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
-</p>
+<h4>The freedom to run the program as you wish</h4>
<p>
The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person
@@ -139,24 +135,12 @@
</p>
<p>
-The freedom to <span class="removed"><del><strong>redistribute copies must
include binary or executable
-forms of</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>run</em></ins></span> the <span
class="removed"><del><strong>program, as well</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>program</em></ins></span> as <span
class="removed"><del><strong>source code, for both modified and
-unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary
-for conveniently installable free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>you wish means that you are not
+The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not
forbidden or stopped from doing so. It has nothing to do with what
functionality the program has, or whether it is useful for what you
want to do.</p>
-<p>
-The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable
-forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and
-unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary
-for conveniently installable free</em></ins></span> operating systems.) It is
OK if there
-is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program
-(since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the
-freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to
-make them.
-</p>
+<h4>The freedom to study the source code and make changes</h4>
<p>
In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the
@@ -173,9 +157,8 @@
run someone else's modified versions but refuse to run yours — a
practice known as “tivoization” or “lockdown”,
or (in its practitioners' perverse terminology) as “secure
-boot” — freedom 1 becomes <span class="removed"><del><strong>a
theoretical fiction</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>an
empty pretense</em></ins></span> rather than a
-practical <span class="removed"><del><strong>freedom. This is not sufficient.
In other words,
-these</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>reality.
These</em></ins></span> binaries are not free
+boot” — freedom 1 becomes an empty pretense rather than a
+practical reality. These binaries are not free
software even if the source code they are compiled from is free.
</p>
@@ -188,6 +171,29 @@
</p>
<p>
+Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter.
+If your right to modify a program is limited, in substance, to changes that
+someone else considers an improvement, that program is not free.
+</p>
+
+<h4>The freedom to redistribute if you wish: basic
requirements</h4>
+
+<p>Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free to
+redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either
+gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to
+<a href="#exportcontrol">anyone anywhere</a>. Being free to do
these
+things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay
+for permission to do so.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
+privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they
+exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to
+notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
+</p>
+
+<p>
Freedom 3 includes the freedom to release your modified versions
as free software. A free license may also permit other ways of
releasing them; in other words, it does not have to be
@@ -197,17 +203,22 @@
</p>
<p>
-In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be permanent and
-irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the
-software has the power to revoke the license, or retroactively add
-restrictions to its terms, without your doing anything wrong to give
-cause, the software is not free.
+The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable
+forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and
+unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary
+for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is OK if there
+is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program
+(since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the
+freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to
+make them.
</p>
+<h4>Copyleft</h4>
+
<p>
-However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free
+Certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free
software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central
-freedoms. For example, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>copyleft</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em><a
href="/copyleft/copyleft.html">copyleft</a></em></ins></span>
+freedoms. For example, <a
href="/copyleft/copyleft.html">copyleft</a>
(very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program,
you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms.
This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it
@@ -215,7 +226,7 @@
</p>
<p>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>In the GNU project, we use copyleft to protect
the four freedoms
+In the GNU project, we use copyleft to protect the four freedoms
legally for everyone. We believe there are important reasons why
<a href="/philosophy/pragmatic.html">it is better to use
copyleft</a>. However,
@@ -227,25 +238,10 @@
relate to each other.
</p>
-<p></em></ins></span>
-“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial”. A free
-program must be available for commercial use, commercial development,
-and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software
-is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.
-You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have
-obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies,
-you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to
-<a href="/philosophy/selling.html">sell copies</a>.
-</p>
+<h4>Rules about packaging and distribution details</h4>
<p>
-Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter.
-If your right to modify a program is limited, in substance, to changes that
-someone else considers an improvement, that program is not free.
-</p>
-
-<p>
-However, rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable,
+Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable,
if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified
versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately.
Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the
@@ -257,15 +253,6 @@
</p>
<p>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>A special issue arises when a license
requires changing the name by
-which the program will be invoked from other programs. That
-effectively hampers you from releasing your changed version so that it
-can replace the original when invoked by those other programs. This
-sort of requirement is acceptable only if there's a suitable aliasing
-facility that allows you to specify the original program's name as an
-alias for the modified version.</p>
-
-<p></strong></del></span>
Rules that “if you make your version available in this way, you
must make it available in that way also” can be acceptable too,
on the same condition. An example of such an acceptable rule is one
@@ -278,22 +265,15 @@
</p>
<p>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>In</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>A special issue arises when a license requires
changing the name by
-which</em></ins></span> the <span class="removed"><del><strong>GNU project, we
use
-<a href="/copyleft/copyleft.html">copyleft</a>
-to protect these freedoms legally for everyone. But
-<a
href="/philosophy/categories.html#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware">noncopylefted
-free software</a> also exists. We believe there are important reasons
why
-<a href="/philosophy/pragmatic.html">it is better to use
copyleft</a>,
-but if your</strong></del></span> program <span
class="removed"><del><strong>is noncopylefted free
software,</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>will be invoked
from other programs. That
-effectively hampers you from releasing your changed version so
that</em></ins></span> it <span class="removed"><del><strong>is still basically
-ethical. (See <a href="/philosophy/categories.html">Categories of Free
Software</a> for a description of how “free software,”
“copylefted software” and</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>can replace the original when invoked by
those</em></ins></span> other <span
class="removed"><del><strong>categories</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>programs. This
-sort</em></ins></span> of <span class="removed"><del><strong>software
relate</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>requirement is
acceptable only if there's a suitable aliasing
-facility that allows you</em></ins></span> to <span
class="removed"><del><strong>each other.)
-</p></strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>specify the
original program's name as an
-alias for the modified version.</p></em></ins></span>
+A special issue arises when a license requires changing the name by
+which the program will be invoked from other programs. That
+effectively hampers you from releasing your changed version so that it
+can replace the original when invoked by those other programs. This
+sort of requirement is acceptable only if there's a suitable aliasing
+facility that allows you to specify the original program's name as an
+alias for the modified version.</p>
+
+<h4>Export regulations</h4>
<p>
Sometimes government <a id="exportcontrol">export control
regulations</a>
@@ -303,12 +283,12 @@
is refuse to impose them as conditions of use of the program. In this
way, the restrictions will not affect activities and people outside the
jurisdictions of these governments. Thus, free software licenses
-must not require obedience to any <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nontrivial</em></ins></span> export regulations as a
-condition of <span class="inserted"><ins><em>exercising</em></ins></span> any
of the essential freedoms.
+must not require obedience to any nontrivial export regulations as a
+condition of exercising any of the essential freedoms.
</p>
<p>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>Merely mentioning the existence of export
regulations, without making
+Merely mentioning the existence of export regulations, without making
them a condition of the license itself, is acceptable since it does
not restrict users. If an export regulation is actually trivial for
free software, then requiring it as a condition is not an actual
@@ -317,6 +297,16 @@
software nonfree.
</p>
+<h4>Legal considerations</h4>
+
+<p>
+In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be permanent and
+irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the
+software has the power to revoke the license, or retroactively add
+restrictions to its terms, without your doing anything wrong to give
+cause, the software is not free.
+</p>
+
<p>
A free license may not require compliance with the license of a
nonfree program. Thus, for instance, if a license requires you to
@@ -331,7 +321,9 @@
law applies, or where litigation must be done, or both.
</p>
-<p></em></ins></span>
+<h4>Contract-based licenses</h4>
+
+<p>
Most free software licenses are based on copyright, and there are limits
on what kinds of requirements can be imposed through copyright. If a
copyright-based license respects freedom in the ways described above, it
@@ -350,6 +342,8 @@
it is nonfree.
</p>
+<h4>Use the right words when talking about free software</h4>
+
<p>
When talking about free software, it is best to avoid using terms
like “give away” or “for free,” because those terms
imply that
@@ -361,6 +355,8 @@
“free software”</a> into various languages.
</p>
+<h4>How we interpret these criteria</h4>
+
<p>
Finally, note that criteria such as those stated in this free software
definition require careful thought for their interpretation. To decide
@@ -375,6 +371,8 @@
it easier to see why certain licenses do or don't qualify.
</p>
+<h4>Get help with free licenses</h4>
+
<p>
If you are interested in whether a specific license qualifies as a free
software license, see our <a href="/licenses/license-list.html">list
@@ -422,7 +420,7 @@
<h3 id="open-source">Open Source?</h3>
<p>
-Another group <span class="removed"><del><strong>has started
using</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>uses</em></ins></span> the term “open
source” to mean
+Another group uses the term “open source” to mean
something close (but not identical) to “free software”. We
prefer the term “free software” because, once you have heard that
it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom. The
@@ -433,12 +431,12 @@
<h3 id="History">History</h3>
<p>From time to time we revise this Free Software Definition. Here is
-the list of <span class="inserted"><ins><em>substantive</em></ins></span>
changes, along with links to show exactly what
+the list of substantive changes, along with links to show exactly what
was changed.</p>
<ul>
-<li><a <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.140&r2=1.141">Version
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.140&r2=1.141">Version
1.141</a>: Clarify which code needs to be free.</li>
<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.134&r2=1.135">Version
@@ -465,7 +463,7 @@
not on what modifications you have made. And modifications are not limited
to “improvements”</li>
-<li><a</em></ins></span>
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.110&r2=1.111">Version
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.110&r2=1.111">Version
1.111</a>: Clarify 1.77 by saying that only
retroactive <em>restrictions</em> are unacceptable. The copyright
holders can always grant additional <em>permission</em> for use of
the
@@ -544,40 +542,29 @@
<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.10&r2=1.11">Version
1.11</a>: Note that a free license may require you to send a copy of
-versions you distribute to the author.</li>
+versions you distribute to previous developers on request.</li>
</ul>
<p>There are gaps in the version numbers shown above because there are
-other changes in this page that do not affect the definition <span
class="removed"><del><strong>as such.
-These</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>or its
-interpretations. For instance, the list does not include</em></ins></span>
changes <span class="removed"><del><strong>are</strong></del></span> in
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>asides, formatting, spelling, punctuation,
or</em></ins></span> other parts of the page.
+other changes in this page that do not affect the definition or its
+interpretations. For instance, the list does not include changes in
+asides, formatting, spelling, punctuation, or other parts of the page.
You can review the complete list of changes to the page through
the <a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&view=log">cvsweb
interface</a>.</p>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
-
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for id="content", starts
in the include above --></em></ins></span>
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
-Please</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="unprintable">
-
-<p>Please</em></ins></span> send <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
-the FSF.
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><br />
-Please send broken</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Broken</em></ins></span> links and other corrections
or suggestions <span class="inserted"><ins><em>can be sent</em></ins></span>
-to <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
-</p>
-
-<p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
replace it with the translation of these two:
@@ -591,15 +578,11 @@
<p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
our web pages, see <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
- README</a>. --></em></ins></span>
+ README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
-of this <span class="removed"><del><strong>article.
-</p>
-
-<p>
-Copyright</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>article.</p>
+of this article.</p>
</div>
<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
@@ -619,23 +602,18 @@
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-<p>Copyright</em></ins></span> © <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1996-2002,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1996, 2002,</em></ins></span> 2004-2007, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2009, 2010, 2012</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2009-2016</em></ins></span>
-Free Software Foundation, <span class="removed"><del><strong>Inc.
-</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Inc.</p></em></ins></span>
+<p>Copyright © 1996, 2002, 2004-2007, 2009-2016
+Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
-<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative</strong></del></span>
-<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative</em></ins></span>
-Commons <span class="removed"><del><strong>Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United
States License</a>.
-</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>Updated:</strong></del></span>
-
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p
class="unprintable">Updated:</em></ins></span>
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2016/01/01 10:30:14 $
+$Date: 2017/02/25 18:29:23 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: po/surveillance-vs-democracy.nl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/surveillance-vs-democracy.nl-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.10
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -u -b -r1.10 -r1.11
--- po/surveillance-vs-democracy.nl-diff.html 18 Nov 2016 07:33:02 -0000
1.10
+++ po/surveillance-vs-democracy.nl-diff.html 25 Feb 2017 18:29:24 -0000
1.11
@@ -11,10 +11,10 @@
</style></head>
<body><pre>
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.77</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.79</em></ins></span> -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
<title>How Much Surveillance Can Democracy Withstand?
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><style type="text/css"
media="print,screen"><!--
+<style type="text/css" media="print,screen"><!--
#intro { margin: 1.5em auto; }
.pict.wide { width: 23em; }
.pict p { margin-top: .2em; }
@@ -23,30 +23,26 @@
.pict.wide { margin-bottom: 0; }
}
--></style>
-<!-- GNUN: localize URL /graphics/dog.small.jpg --></em></ins></span>
+<!-- GNUN: localize URL /graphics/dog.small.jpg -->
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/surveillance-vs-democracy.translist"
-->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><h2>How</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><h2 class="center">How</em></ins></span>
Much Surveillance Can Democracy Withstand?</h2>
+<h2 class="center">How Much Surveillance Can Democracy
Withstand?</h2>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>by</strong></del></span>
-
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p class="byline
center">by</em></ins></span> <a
href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard Stallman</a></p>
+<p class="byline center">by <a
href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard Stallman</a></p>
<!-- rms: I deleted the link because of Wired's announced
anti-ad-block system -->
-<span
class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote><p>A</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><blockquote
class="center"><p>A</em></ins></span> version of this article was
first published in Wired
+<blockquote class="center"><p>A version of this article was first
published in Wired
in October 2013.</p></blockquote>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="article">
+<div class="article">
<div id="intro">
<div class="pict wide">
<a href="/graphics/dog.html">
<img src="/graphics/dog.small.jpg" alt="Cartoon of a dog, wondering at the
three ads that popped up on his computer screen..." /></a>
<p>“How did they find out I'm a dog?”</p>
-</div></em></ins></span>
+</div>
<p>Thanks to Edward Snowden's disclosures, we know that the current
level of general surveillance in society is incompatible with human
@@ -58,8 +54,8 @@
is not exceeded? It is the level beyond which surveillance starts to
interfere with the functioning of democracy, in that whistleblowers
(such as Snowden) are likely to be caught.</p>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div>
-<div class="columns" style="clear:both"></em></ins></span>
+</div>
+<div class="columns" style="clear:both">
<p>Faced with government secrecy, we the people depend on
whistleblowers
to <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/reddit-tpp-ama">tell
@@ -73,7 +69,7 @@
I've advocated for 30 years</a>, is the first step in taking control
of our digital lives, and that includes preventing surveillance. We
can't trust nonfree software; the NSA
-<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/how-can-any-company-ever-trust-microsoft-again-3569376/">uses</a></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130622044225/http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2013/06/how-can-any-company-ever-trust-microsoft-again/index.htm">uses</a></em></ins></span>
+<a
href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130622044225/http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2013/06/how-can-any-company-ever-trust-microsoft-again/index.htm">uses</a>
and
even <a
href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-gchq-encryption-codes-security">creates</a>
security weaknesses in nonfree software to invade our own computers
@@ -89,13 +85,11 @@
suffice to protect whistleblowers if “catching the
whistleblower” is grounds for access sufficient to identify him
or her. We need to go further.</p>
+</div>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><h3>The</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div>
-
-<h3 class="subheader" style="clear: both">The</em></ins></span> Upper
Limit on Surveillance in a Democracy</h3>
+<h3 class="subheader" style="clear: both">The Upper Limit on
Surveillance in a Democracy</h3>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="columns"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="columns">
<p>If whistleblowers don't dare reveal crimes and lies, we lose the
last shred of effective control over our government and institutions.
That's why surveillance that enables the state to find out who has
@@ -111,7 +105,7 @@
phone call records are subpoenaed</a> to find this out, but Snowden
has shown us that in effect they subpoena all the phone call records
of everyone in the U.S., all the
-time, <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order">from</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/20131226044537/http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order">from</em></ins></span>
+time, <a
href="https://web.archive.org/web/20131226044537/http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order">from
Verizon</a>
and <a
href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nsa-data-mining-digs-into-networks-beyond-verizon-2013-06-07">from
other companies too</a>.</p>
@@ -124,14 +118,14 @@
that there might be terrorists among them. The point at which
surveillance is too much is the point at which the state can find who
spoke to a known journalist or a known dissident.</p>
+</div>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><h3>Information,</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div>
-
-<h3 class="subheader">Information,</em></ins></span> Once Collected,
Will Be Misused</h3>
+<h3 class="subheader">Information, Once Collected, Will Be
Misused</h3>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="columns"></em></ins></span>
-<p>When people recognize that the level of general surveillance is too
+<div class="columns">
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>When</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p
id="willbemisused">When</em></ins></span> people recognize
+that the level of general surveillance is too
high, the first response is to propose limits on access to the
accumulated data. That sounds nice, but it won't fix the problem, not
even slightly, even supposing that the government obeys the rules.
@@ -142,18 +136,26 @@
“espionage,” finding the “spy” will provide an
excuse to access the accumulated material.</p>
-<p>In addition, the state's surveillance staff will misuse the data for
-personal reasons. Some NSA
+<p>In addition, the state's surveillance staff will misuse the data
+for personal reasons. Some NSA
agents <a
href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/24/nsa-analysts-abused-surveillance-systems">used
U.S. surveillance systems to track their lovers</a>—past,
present, or wished-for—in a practice called
“LOVEINT.” The NSA says it has caught and punished this a
few times; we don't know how many other times it wasn't caught. But
these events shouldn't surprise us, because police have
-long <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/privacy/lein1.htm">used</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160401102120/http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/privacy/lein1.htm#.V_mKlYbb69I">used</em></ins></span>
+long <a
href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160401102120/http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/privacy/lein1.htm#.V_mKlYbb69I">used
their access to driver's license records to track down someone
attractive</a>, a practice known as “running a plate for a
-date.” This practice has expanded with <a
href="https://theyarewatching.org/issues/risks-increase-once-data-shared">new
digital systems</a>.
+date.” This practice has expanded
+with <a
href="https://theyarewatching.org/issues/risks-increase-once-data-shared">new
+digital systems</a>. <span class="inserted"><ins><em>In 2016, a
prosecutor was accused of forging
+judges' signatures to get authorization
+to <a
href="http://gizmodo.com/government-officials-cant-stop-spying-on-their-crushes-1789490933">
+wiretap someone who was the object of a romantic obsession</a>. The AP
+knows
+of <a
href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/699236946e3140659fff8a2362e16f43/ap-across-us-police-officers-abuse-confidential-databases">many
+other instances in the US</a>.</em></ins></span>
</p>
<p>Surveillance data will always be used for other purposes, even if
@@ -177,13 +179,11 @@
launch a massive fishing expedition against any person. To make
journalism and democracy safe, we must limit the accumulation of data
that is easily accessible to the state.</p>
+</div>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><h3>Robust</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div>
-
-<h3 class="subheader">Robust</em></ins></span> Protection for Privacy
Must Be Technical</h3>
+<h3 class="subheader">Robust Protection for Privacy Must Be
Technical</h3>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="columns"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="columns">
<p>The Electronic Frontier Foundation and other organizations propose
a set of legal principles designed to <a
href="https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/text">prevent the
@@ -211,13 +211,11 @@
regime would have to implement surveillance afresh, and it would only
collect data starting at that date. As for suspending or momentarily
ignoring this law, the idea would hardly make sense.</p>
+</div>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><h3>First,</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div>
-
-<h3 class="subheader">First,</em></ins></span> Don't Be
Foolish</h3>
+<h3 class="subheader">First, Don't Be Foolish</h3>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="columns"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="columns">
<p>To have privacy, you must not throw it away: the first one who has
to protect your privacy is you. Avoid identifying yourself to web
sites, contact them with Tor, and use browsers that block the schemes
@@ -258,13 +256,11 @@
movements, but not all of them. Clearly, the better solution is to
make all these systems stop surveilling people other than legitimate
suspects.</p>
+</div>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><h3>We</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div>
-
-<h3 class="subheader">We</em></ins></span> Must Design Every System for
Privacy</h3>
+<h3 class="subheader">We Must Design Every System for Privacy</h3>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="columns"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="columns">
<p>If we don't want a total surveillance society, we must consider
surveillance a kind of social pollution, and limit the surveillance
impact of each new digital system just as we limit the environmental
@@ -282,13 +278,11 @@
period. The same benefit, with no surveillance!</p>
<p>We need to design such privacy into all our digital systems.</p>
+</div>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><h3>Remedy</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div>
-
-<h3 class="subheader">Remedy</em></ins></span> for Collecting Data:
Leaving It Dispersed</h3>
+<h3 class="subheader">Remedy for Collecting Data: Leaving It
Dispersed</h3>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="columns"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="columns">
<p>One way to make monitoring safe for privacy is
to <a name="dispersal">keep the data dispersed and inconvenient to
access</a>. Old-fashioned security cameras were no threat to
privacy(<a href="#privatespace">*</a>).
@@ -306,13 +300,11 @@
who they talk with.</p>
<p>Internet-connected cameras often have lousy digital security
-themselves, <span class="removed"><del><strong>so</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>which
-means</em></ins></span> <a
-<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.networkworld.com/article/2221934/microsoft-subnet/cia-wants-to-spy-on-you-through-your-appliances.html">anyone
-could</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/cia-wants-spy-you-through-your-appliances">anyone
-can</em></ins></span> watch what <span class="removed"><del><strong>the camera
sees</a>. To restore privacy,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>those cameras see</a>. This makes
internet-connected
+themselves, which
+means <a
href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/cia-wants-spy-you-through-your-appliances">anyone
+can watch what those cameras see</a>. This makes internet-connected
cameras a major threat to security as well as privacy. For privacy's
-sake,</em></ins></span> we should ban the use of Internet-connected cameras
aimed where
+sake, we should ban the use of Internet-connected cameras aimed where
and when the public is admitted, except when carried by people.
Everyone must be free to post photos and video recordings
occasionally, but the systematic accumulation of such data on the
@@ -322,11 +314,11 @@
camera points at the inside of a store, or at the street. Any camera
pointed at someone's private space by someone else violates privacy,
but that is another issue.</p>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div></em></ins></span>
+</div>
-<h3 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="digitalcash">Remedy</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>id="digitalcash"
class="subheader">Remedy</em></ins></span> for Internet Commerce
Surveillance</h3>
+<h3 id="digitalcash" class="subheader">Remedy for Internet Commerce
Surveillance</h3>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="columns"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="columns">
<p>Most data collection comes from people's own digital activities.
Usually the data is collected first by companies. But when it comes
to the threat to privacy and democracy, it makes no difference whether
@@ -372,8 +364,8 @@
is not anonymous</a>, though there are efforts to develop ways to pay
anonymously with Bitcoin. However, technology
for <a
href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.12/emoney_pr.html">digital
-cash was first developed in the 1980s</a>; <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>the GNU software for doing
-this is called <a href="http://taler.net/">GNU Taler</a>.
Now</em></ins></span> we need
+cash was first developed in the 1980s</a>; the GNU software for doing
+this is called <a href="http://taler.net/">GNU Taler</a>. Now we
need
only suitable business arrangements, and for the state not to obstruct
them.</p>
@@ -382,13 +374,11 @@
customers' credit card details. An anonymous payment system would end
this danger: a security hole in the site can't hurt you if the site
knows nothing about you.</p>
+</div>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><h3>Remedy</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div>
-
-<h3 class="subheader">Remedy</em></ins></span> for Travel
Surveillance</h3>
+<h3 class="subheader">Remedy for Travel Surveillance</h3>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="columns"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="columns">
<p>We must convert digital toll collection to anonymous payment (using
digital cash, for instance). License-plate recognition systems
recognize all license plates, and
@@ -443,13 +433,11 @@
remains “out” for too long, the station where it was
borrowed can inform headquarters; in that case, it could send the
borrower's identity immediately.</p>
+</div>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><h3>Remedy</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div>
-
-<h3 class="subheader">Remedy</em></ins></span> for Communications
Dossiers</h3>
+<h3 class="subheader">Remedy for Communications Dossiers</h3>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="columns"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="columns">
<p>Internet service providers and telephone companies keep extensive
data on their users' contacts (browsing, phone calls, etc). With
mobile phones, they
@@ -487,13 +475,11 @@
some user of my email service, and my email service would know only
that I received mail from some user of your email service, but it
would be hard to determine that you had sent mail to me.</p>
+</div>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><h3>But</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div>
-
-<h3 class="subheader">But</em></ins></span> Some Surveillance Is
Necessary</h3>
+<h3 class="subheader">But Some Surveillance Is Necessary</h3>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="columns"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="columns">
<p>For the state to find criminals, it needs to be able to investigate
specific crimes, or specific suspected planned crimes, under a court
order. With the Internet, the power to tap phone conversations would
@@ -527,12 +513,10 @@
<p>However, journalism must be protected from surveillance even when
it is carried out as part of a business.</p>
-
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><hr /></strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div>
+</div>
<div class="column-limit"></div>
-<div class="reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="reduced-width">
<p>Digital technology has brought about a tremendous increase in the
level of surveillance of our movements, actions, and communications.
It is far more than we experienced in the 1990s, and <a
@@ -552,8 +536,8 @@
a grave surveillance deficit, and ought to be surveilled more than the
Soviet Union and East Germany were, we must reverse this increase.
That requires stopping the accumulation of big data about people.</p>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div>
-</div></em></ins></span>
+</div>
+</div>
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
@@ -612,7 +596,7 @@
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2016/11/18 07:33:02 $
+$Date: 2017/02/25 18:29:24 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: po/stallmans-law.hr-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/stallmans-law.hr-diff.html
diff -N po/stallmans-law.hr-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/stallmans-law.hr-diff.html 25 Feb 2017 18:29:24 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/stallmans-law.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Stallman's Law - GNU Project - Free Software
Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/stallmans-law.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Stallman's Law</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>While</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>Now that</em></ins></span>
corporations dominate society and write the laws, each
+advance or change in technology is an opening for them to further
+restrict or mistreat its users.</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND <span class="removed"><del><strong>3.0
US.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>4.0.</em></ins></span> Please do NOT change or
remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2012</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2012, 2016</em></ins></span> Free Software
Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative</em></ins></span>
+Commons <span class="removed"><del><strong>Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United
States</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0
International</em></ins></span> License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2017/02/25 18:29:24 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/words-to-avoid.it-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/words-to-avoid.it-diff.html
diff -N po/words-to-avoid.it-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/words-to-avoid.it-diff.html 25 Feb 2017 18:29:24 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,1310 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
+<title>Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or
Confusing
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or
Confusing</h2>
+
+<p>
+There are a number of words and phrases that we recommend avoiding, or
+avoiding in certain contexts and usages. Some are ambiguous or
+misleading; others presuppose a viewpoint that we disagree with, and
+we hope you disagree with it too.</p>
+
+<div class="announcement">
+<blockquote><p>Also note <a
href="/philosophy/categories.html">Categories of Free
+Software</a>,
+<a href="/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html">Why Call It The
+Swindle?</a></p></blockquote>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-START
--> “<a
+ href="#Ad-blocker">Ad-blocker</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Access">Access</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Alternative">Alternative</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Assets">Assets</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#BSD-style">BSD-style</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Closed">Closed</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#CloudComputing">Cloud Computing</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Commercial">Commercial</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Compensation">Compensation</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Consume">Consume</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Consumer">Consumer</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Content">Content</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#CreativeCommonsLicensed">Creative Commons
licensed</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Creator">Creator</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#DigitalGoods">Digital Goods</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#DigitalLocks">Digital Locks</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#DigitalRightsManagement">Digital Rights
Management</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Ecosystem">Ecosystem</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#FLOSS">FLOSS</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#ForFree">For free</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#FOSS">FOSS</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#FreelyAvailable">Freely available</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Freeware">Freeware</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#GiveAwaySoftware">Give away software</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Google">Google</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Hacker">Hacker</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#IntellectualProperty">Intellectual property</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#LAMP">LAMP system</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Linux">Linux system</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Market">Market</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Monetize">Monetize</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#MP3Player">MP3 player</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Open">Open</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#PC">PC</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Photoshop">Photoshop</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Piracy">Piracy</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#PowerPoint">PowerPoint</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Protection">Protection</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#RAND">RAND</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#SaaS">SaaS</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#SellSoftware">Sell software</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#SharingEconomy">Sharing economy</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Skype">Skype</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#SoftwareIndustry">Software Industry</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#SourceModel">Source model</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!--#if expr="$LANGUAGE_SUFFIX = /^.(es)$/" -->
+<!-- TRANSLATORS: translate if this word is used often in your
+ language to refer to mobile computers; otherwise,
+ fill the translation with a space. -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->“<a
+ href="#Terminal">Terminal</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY
--><!--#endif
+ --><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
+ href="#Theft">Theft</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#TrustedComputing">Trusted Computing</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Vendor">Vendor</a>”
+<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-STOP
--></p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-START -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Ad-blocker">“Ad-blocker”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+When the purpose of some program is to block advertisements,
+“ad-blocker” is a good term for it. However, the GNU
+browser IceCat blocks advertisements that track the user as
+consequence of broader measures to prevent surveillance by web sites.
+This is not an “ad-blocker,” this is
+<em>surveillance protection</em>.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Access">“Access”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+The <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">criterion for free
software</a>
+is not about who has “access” to the program; the four
+essential freedoms concern what a user that has a copy of the program
+is allowed to 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 <em>obligated</em> to do that for you; you do not have
+a <em>right</em> to demand a copy of that program from any
user.</p>
+<p>
+In particular, if you write a program yourself and never offer a copy
+to anyone else, that program is free software albeit in a trivial way,
+because every user that has a copy has the four essential freedoms
+(since the only such user is you).</p>
+<p>
+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 that isn't a
+requirement of free software.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Alternative">“Alternative”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+We believe that distribution as free software is the only ethical way
+to make software available for others to use. The other methods,
+<a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">nonfree
+software</a>
+and <a href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">Service
+as a Software Substitute</a> subjugate their users. We do not think
+it is good to offer users those “alternatives” to free
+software.
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Assets">“Assets”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+To refer to published works as “assets”, or “digital
+assets”, is even worse than calling
+them <a href="#Content">“content”</a> — it
presumes
+they have no value to society except commercial value.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="BSD-style">“BSD-style”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The expression “BSD-style license” leads to confusion because it
+<a href="/licenses/bsd.html">lumps together licenses that have
+important differences</a>. 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.</p>
+<p>
+To avoid confusion, it is best to
+name <a href="/licenses/license-list.html"> the specific license in
+question</a> and avoid the vague term “BSD-style.”</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Closed">“Closed”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Describing nonfree software as “closed” clearly refers to
+the term “open source.” In the free software movement,
+<a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"> we do not want
to
+be confused with the open source camp</a>, so we
+are careful to avoid saying things that would encourage people to lump us in
+with them. For instance, we avoid describing nonfree software as
+“closed.” We call it “nonfree” or
+<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">
+“proprietary”</a>.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="CloudComputing">“Cloud Computing”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The term “cloud computing” (or
+just <a name="Cloud">“cloud”</a>, 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 (or, could we say,
+“cloudy”?).
+</p>
+
+<p>
+When thinking about or responding to a statement someone else has made
+using this term, the first step is to clarify the topic. What
+scenario is the statement about? What is a good, clear term for that
+scenario? Once the topic is clearly formulated, coherent thought
+about it becomes possible.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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
+<a
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/25/hackers-spooks-cloud-antiauthoritarian-dream">surveillance</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Another meaning (which overlaps that but is not the same thing)
+is <a href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">
+Service as a Software Substitute</a>, which denies you control over
+your computing. You should never use SaaSS.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Another meaning is renting a remote physical server, or virtual server.
+These practices are ok under certain circumstances.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Another meaning is accessing your own server from your own mobile device.
+That raises no particular ethical issues.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+The <a
href="http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-145/SP800-145.pdf">
+NIST definition of "cloud computing"</a> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Curiously, Larry Ellison, a proprietary software developer,
+also <a
href="http://www.cnet.com/news/oracles-ellison-nails-cloud-computing/">
+noted the vacuity of the term “cloud computing.”</a> He
+decided to use the term anyway because, as a proprietary software
+developer, he isn't motivated by the same ideals as we are.
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Commercial">“Commercial”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Please don't use “commercial” as a synonym for
+“nonfree.” That confuses two entirely different
+issues.</p>
+<p>
+A program is commercial if it is developed as a business activity. A
+commercial program can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of
+distribution. Likewise, a program developed by a school or an
+individual can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of
+distribution. The two questions—what sort of entity developed
+the program and what freedom its users have—are independent.</p>
+<p>
+In the first decade of the free software movement, free software
+packages were almost always noncommercial; the components of the
+GNU/Linux operating system were developed by individuals or by
+nonprofit organizations such as the FSF and universities. Later, in
+the 1990s, free commercial software started to appear.</p>
+<p>
+Free commercial software is a contribution to our community, so we
+should encourage it. But people who think that
+“commercial” means “nonfree” will tend to
+think that the “free commercial” combination is
+self-contradictory, and dismiss the possibility. Let's be careful not
+to use the word “commercial” in that way.</p>
+
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Compensation">“Compensation”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+To speak of “compensation for authors” in connection with
+copyright carries the assumptions that (1) copyright exists for the
+sake of authors and (2) whenever we read something, we take on a debt
+to the author which we must then repay. The first assumption is
+simply
+<a href="/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html">false</a>, and
+the second is outrageous.
+</p>
+<p>
+“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.
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Consume">“Consume”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+“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 <em>uses them up</em>.
+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 <span class="removed"><del><strong>simply an
error.</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>stretching the
word so far that it snaps.</em></ins></span> Playing a
+recording, or running a program, does not consume it.</p>
+
+<p>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>The term</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>Those who use</em></ins></span>
“consume” <span class="inserted"><ins><em>in this context will say
they
+don't mean it literally. What, then, does it mean? It means to regard
+copies of software and other works from a narrow economistic point of
+view. “Consume”</em></ins></span> is associated with the
economics of
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>uncopyable</strong></del></span>
+material <span class="removed"><del><strong>products,</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>commodities, such as the fuel or electricity
that a car uses
+up. Gasoline is a commodity,</em></ins></span> and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>leads</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>so is electricity. Commodities
+are <em>fungible</em>: there is nothing special about a drop of
+gasoline that your car burns today versus another drop that it burned
+last week.</p>
+
+<p>Do we want</em></ins></span> people to <span
class="removed"><del><strong>transfer its
+conclusions unconsciously to copiable digital works
—</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>think of writings
(software, news, any other
+kind) as a commodity, with the assumption that there is nothing
+special about any one story, article, program, or song? Should we
+treat them as fungible? That is the twisted viewpoint of</em></ins></span> an
<span class="removed"><del><strong>error</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>economist, or the accountant of a publishing
company. It is no
+surprise</em></ins></span> that proprietary software <span
class="removed"><del><strong>developers (and other publishers) dearly
+wish</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>would like
you</em></ins></span> to <span
class="removed"><del><strong>encourage.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>think of the use
+of software as a commodity.</em></ins></span> Their twisted viewpoint comes
through
+clearly
+in <a
href="http://www.businessinsider.com/former-google-exec-launches-sourcepoint-with-10-million-series-a-funding-2015-6">this
+article</a>, which also refers to publications as
+“<a href="#Content">content</a>.”</p>
+
+<p>
+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 <a href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org/">Digital
+Restrictions Management</a> (DRM) facilities in digital devices. If
+users think what they do with these devices is “consume,”
+they may see such restrictions as natural.</p>
+
+<p>
+It also encourages the acceptation of “streaming”
+services, which use DRM to <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>perversely</em></ins></span> limit <span
class="removed"><del><strong>use of digital recordings</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>listening</em></ins></span> to <span
class="removed"><del><strong>a
+form</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>music
so</em></ins></span> that
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>it</em></ins></span> fits the <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>assumptions of the</em></ins></span> word
“consume.”</p>
+
+<p>
+Why is this perverse usage spreading? Some may feel that the term
+sounds <span class="removed"><del><strong>sophisticated; if that attracts
you,</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>sophisticated,
but</em></ins></span> 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.</p>
+
+<p>
+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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>reject</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>avoid</em></ins></span>
+using the term “consume” for them. <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>What to use instead?</em></ins></span>
+We <span class="inserted"><ins><em>prefer specific verbs such as “listen
to”,
+“watch”, “read” or “look at”,
+since they help to restrain the tendency to overgeneralize.</p>
+
+<p>When it is absolutely necessary to generalize about all kinds of
+works and all media, we</em></ins></span> recommend <span
class="removed"><del><strong>saying
+that someone “experiences”</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“experience” or
+“give attention to” for</em></ins></span> an artistic work or a
work
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>stating</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>to
+present</em></ins></span> a point of view, and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>that someone
“uses”</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“use” for</em></ins></span> a
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>practical</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>practically
+useful</em></ins></span> work.</p>
+
+<p>See also the following entry.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Consumer">“Consumer”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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
+<a href="#Consume">the previous entry</a>), which leads people to
+impose on copiable digital works the economic conclusions that were
+drawn about uncopiable material products.</p>
+<p>
+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 <a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">directly
+exercise control over what a program does</a>.</p>
+<p>
+To describe people who are not limited to passive use of works, we
+suggest terms such as “individuals” and
+“citizens,” rather than “consumers.”</p>
+<p>
+This problem with the word “consumer” has
+been <a
href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/11/capitalism-language-raymond-williams">noted
before</a>.
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Content">“Content”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+If you want to describe a feeling of comfort and satisfaction, by all
+means say you are “content,” but using the word as a
+noun to describe 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.”
+</p>
+<p>
+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. This was also recognized by Tom Chatfield
+<a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/aug/02/how-to-deal-with-trump-trolls-online">in
the Guardian</a>:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>
+Content itself is beside the point—as the very use of words like
+content suggests. The moment you start labelling every single piece of
+writing in the world “content,” you have conceded its
+interchangeability: its primary purpose as mere grist to the metrical
+mill.
+</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>See also <a
href="http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/">Courtney
+Love's open letter to Steve Case</a> and search for “content
+provider” in that page. Alas, Ms. Love is unaware that the term
+“intellectual property” is
+also <a href="#IntellectualProperty"> biased and
confusing</a>.</p>
+<p>
+However, as long as other people use the term “content
+provider,” political dissidents can well call themselves
+“malcontent providers.”</p>
+<p>
+The term “content management” takes the prize for vacuity.
+“Content” means “some sort of information,”
+and “management” in this context means “doing
+something with it.” So a “content management
+system” is a system for doing something to some sort of
+information. Nearly all programs fit that description.</p>
+
+<p>
+In most cases, that term really refers to a system for updating pages
+on a web site. For that, we recommend the term “web site revision
+system” (WRS).</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="CreativeCommonsLicensed">“Creative Commons
licensed”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+To encourage people to pay attention to the most important
+distinction, always specify <em>which</em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Creator">“Creator”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The term “creator” as applied to authors implicitly
+compares them to a deity (“the creator”). The term is
+used by publishers to elevate authors' moral standing above that of
+ordinary people in order to justify giving them increased copyright
+power, which the publishers can then exercise in their name. We
+recommend saying “author” instead. However, in many cases
+“copyright holder” is what you really mean. These two
+terms are not equivalent: often the copyright holder is not the
+author.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="DigitalGoods">“Digital Goods”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="DigitalLocks">“Digital Locks”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+“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.</p>
+<p>
+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 <a
href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/01/encryption-wont-work-if-it-has-a-back-door-only-the-good-guys-have-keys-to-">encryption</a>
+invaluable for protecting our digital files. That too is a kind
+of digital lock that you have control over.</p>
+<p>
+DRM is like a lock placed on you by someone else, who refuses to give
+you the key—in other words, like <em>handcuffs</em>.
Therefore,
+the proper metaphor for DRM is “digital handcuffs,” not
+“digital locks.”</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="DigitalRightsManagement">“Digital Rights
Management”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+“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.</p>
+<p>
+Good alternatives include “Digital Restrictions
+Management,” and “digital handcuffs.”</p>
+<p>
+Please sign up to support our <a href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org/">
+campaign to abolish DRM</a>.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Ecosystem">“Ecosystem”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+The term “ecosystem” implicitly suggests an attitude of
+nonjudgmental observation: don't ask how what <em>should</em>
happen,
+just study and understand what <em>does</em> 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.</p>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="FLOSS">“FLOSS”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The term “FLOSS,” meaning “Free/Libre and Open
+Source Software,” was coined as a way
+to <a href="/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html">be neutral between free
+software and open source</a>. 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.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="ForFree">“For free”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+If you want to say that a program is free software, please don't say
+that it is available “for free.” That term specifically
+means “for zero price.” Free software is a matter of
+freedom, not price.</p>
+<p>
+Free software copies are often available for free—for example,
+by downloading via FTP. But free software copies are also available
+for a price on CD-ROMs; meanwhile, proprietary software copies are
+occasionally available for free in promotions, and some proprietary
+packages are normally available at no charge to certain users.</p>
+<p>
+To avoid confusion, you can say that the program is available
+“as free software.”</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="FOSS">“FOSS”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The term “FOSS,” meaning “Free and Open Source
+Software,” was coined as a way
+to <a href="/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html">be neutral between free
+software and open source</a>, but it doesn't really do that. If
+neutrality is your goal, “FLOSS” is better. But if you
+want to show you stand for freedom, don't use a neutral term.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="FreelyAvailable">“Freely available”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Don't use “freely available software” as a synonym for “free
+software.” The terms are not equivalent. Software is “freely
+available” if anyone can easily get a copy. “Free
+software” is defined in terms of the freedom of users that have
+a copy of it. These are answers to different questions.
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Freeware">“Freeware”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Please don't use the term “freeware” as a synonym for
+“free software.” The term “freeware” was used
+often in the 1980s for programs released only as executables, with
+source code not available. Today it has no particular agreed-on
+definition.</p>
+<p>
+When using languages other than English, please avoid
+borrowing English terms such as “free software” or
+“freeware.” It is better to translate the term “free
+software” into
+<a href="/philosophy/fs-translations.html">your
language</a>.</p>
+
+<p>
+By using a word in <a href="/philosophy/fs-translations.html">your
+own language</a>, you show that you are really referring to freedom
+and not just parroting some mysterious foreign marketing concept.
+The reference to freedom may at first seem strange or disturbing
+to your compatriots, but once they see that it means exactly what
+it says, they will really understand what the issue is.
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="GiveAwaySoftware">“Give away software”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+It's misleading to use the term “give away” to mean
+“distribute a program as free software.”
+This locution has the same
+problem as “for free”: it implies the issue is price, not
+freedom. One way to avoid the confusion is to say “release as
+free software.”</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Google">“Google”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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 “search the web” or (in some contexts) just
+“search”. Try to use a search engine that respects your
+privacy; <a href="https://duckduckgo.com/">DuckDuckGo</a> claims
not
+to track its users, although we cannot confirm.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Hacker">“Hacker”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+A hacker is someone
+who <a href="http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html"> enjoys
+playful cleverness</a>—not necessarily with computers. The
+programmers in the old
+<abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr> free
+software community of the 60s and 70s referred to themselves as
+hackers. Around 1980, journalists who discovered the hacker community
+mistakenly took the term to mean “security breaker.”</p>
+
+<p>
+Please don't spread this mistake.
+People who break security are “crackers.”</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="IntellectualProperty">“Intellectual
property”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as
+“intellectual property”—a term also applied to
+patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws
+have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised
+to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about
+“copyright,” or about “patents,” or about
+“trademarks.”</p>
+<p>
+The term “intellectual property” carries a hidden
+assumption—that the way to think about all these disparate
+issues is based on an analogy with physical objects,
+and our conception of them as physical property.</p>
+<p>
+When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial
+difference between material objects and information: information can
+be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't
+be.</p>
+<p>
+To avoid spreading unnecessary bias and confusion, it is best to adopt
+a firm policy <a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html"> not to speak or even
+think in terms of “intellectual property”</a>.</p>
+<p>
+The hypocrisy of calling these powers “rights” is
+<a href="/philosophy/wipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html">
+starting to make the World “Intellectual Property”
+Organization embarrassed</a>.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="LAMP">“LAMP system”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+“LAMP” stands for “Linux, Apache, MySQL and
+PHP”—a common combination of software to use on a web
+server, except that “Linux” in this context really refers
+to the GNU/Linux system. So instead of “LAMP” it should
+be “GLAMP”: “GNU, Linux, Apache, MySQL and
+PHP.”
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Linux">“Linux system”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Linux is the name of the kernel that Linus Torvalds developed starting
+in 1991. The operating system in which Linux is used is basically GNU
+with Linux added. To call the whole system “Linux” is
+both unfair and confusing. Please call the complete
+system <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html"> GNU/Linux</a>, both to
give
+the GNU Project credit and to distinguish the whole system from the
+kernel alone.
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Market">“Market”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the
+software users in general, as a “market.”</p>
+<p>
+This is not to say there is no room for markets in the free software community.
+If you have a free software
+support business, then you have clients, and you trade with them in a
+market. As long as you respect their freedom, we wish you success in
+your market.</p>
+<p>
+But the free software movement is a social movement, not a business,
+and the success it aims for is not a market success. We are trying to
+serve the public by giving it freedom—not competing to draw business
+away from a rival. To equate this campaign for freedom to a business's
+efforts for mere success is to deny the importance of freedom
+and legitimize proprietary software.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Monetize">“Monetize”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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”.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+A productive and ethical business can make money, but if it
+subordinates all else to profit, it is not likely to remain
+ethical.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="MP3Player">“MP3 Player”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+In the late 1990s it became feasible to make portable, solid-state
+digital audio players. Most support the patented MP3 codec, but not
+all. Some support the patent-free audio codecs Ogg Vorbis and FLAC,
+and may not even support MP3-encoded files at all, precisely to avoid
+these patents. To call such players “MP3 players” is not
+only confusing, it also privileges the MP3 that we ought to reject.
+We suggest the terms “digital audio player,”
+or simply “audio player” if context permits.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Open">“Open”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Please avoid using the term “open” or “open
+source” as a substitute for “free software.” Those terms
+refer to a <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">
+different set of views</a> based on different values. The free software
+movement campaigns for your freedom in your computing, as a matter
+of justice. The open source non-movement does not campaign for anything
+in this way.</p>
+
+<p>When referring to the open source views, it's correct to use that
+name, but please do not use that term when talking about us, our
+software, or our views—that leads people to suppose our views
+are similar to theirs.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="PC">“PC”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+It's OK to use the abbreviation “PC” to refer to a certain
+kind of computer hardware, but please don't use it with the
+implication that the computer is running Microsoft Windows. If you
+install GNU/Linux on the same computer, it is still a PC.</p>
+
+<p>
+The term “WC” has been suggested for a computer running
+Windows.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Photoshop">“Photoshop”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Please avoid using the term “photoshop” as a verb, meaning
+any kind of photo manipulation or image editing in general. Photoshop
+is just the name of one particular image editing program, which should
+be avoided since it is proprietary. There are plenty of free programs
+for editing images, such as the <a
href="/software/gimp">GIMP</a>.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Piracy">“Piracy”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as
+“piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically
+equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and
+murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have
+procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or
+sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make
+these prohibitions more complete.)
+</p>
+<p>
+If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is
+just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word
+“piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as
+“unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited
+copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available
+for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term
+such as “sharing information with your neighbor.”</p>
+
+<p>
+A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement,
+recognized that
+<a
href="http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129/">“piracy”
+and “theft” are smear words.</a></p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="PowerPoint">“PowerPoint”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Please avoid using the term “PowerPoint” to mean any kind
+of slide presentation. “PowerPoint” is just the name of
+one particular proprietary program to make presentations. For your
+freedom's sake, you should use only free software to make your
+presentations. Recommended options include TeX's <tt>beamer</tt>
+class and LibreOffice.org's Impress.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Protection">“Protection”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Publishers' lawyers love to use the term “protection” to
+describe copyright. This word carries the implication of preventing
+destruction or suffering; therefore, it encourages people to identify
+with the owner and publisher who benefit from copyright, rather than
+with the users who are restricted by it.</p>
+<p>
+It is easy to avoid “protection” and use neutral terms
+instead. For example, instead of saying, “Copyright protection lasts a
+very long time,” you can say, “Copyright lasts a very long
+time.”</p>
+<p>
+Likewise, instead of saying, “protected by copyright,” you
+can say, “covered by copyright” or just
+“copyrighted.”</p>
+<p>
+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.”</p>
+
+<p>
+The term “protection” is also used to describe malicious
+features. For instance, “copy protection” is a feature
+that interferes with copying. From the user's point of view, this is
+obstruction. So we could call that malicious feature “copy
+obstruction.” More often it is called Digital Restrictions
+Management (DRM)—see the
+<a href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org"> Defective by Design</a>
+campaign.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="RAND">“RAND (Reasonable and
Non-Discriminatory)”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Standards bodies that promulgate patent-restricted standards that
+prohibit free software typically have a policy of obtaining patent
+licenses that require a fixed fee per copy of a conforming program.
+They often refer to such licenses by the term “RAND,”
+which stands for “reasonable and non-discriminatory.”</p>
+<p>
+That term whitewashes a class of patent licenses that are normally
+neither reasonable nor nondiscriminatory. It is true that these
+licenses do not discriminate against any specific person, but they do
+discriminate against the free software community, and that makes them
+unreasonable. Thus, half of the term “RAND” is deceptive
+and the other half is prejudiced.</p>
+<p>
+Standards bodies should recognize that these licenses are
+discriminatory, and drop the use of the term “reasonable and
+non-discriminatory” or “RAND” to describe them.
+Until they do so, writers who do not wish to join in the
+whitewashing would do well to reject that term. To accept and use it
+merely because patent-wielding companies have made it widespread is to
+let those companies dictate the views you express.</p>
+<p>
+We suggest the term “uniform fee only,” or
+“UFO” for short, as a replacement. It is accurate because
+the only condition in these licenses is a uniform royalty fee.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="SaaS">“SaaS” or “Software as a
Service”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+See <a href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">Who
+Does That Server Really Serve?</a> for discussion of this
+issue.</p>
+<p>
+In Spanish we continue to use the term “software como
+servicio” because the joke of “software como ser
+vicio” (“software, as being pernicious”) is too good
+to give up.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="SellSoftware">“Sell software”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The term “sell software” is ambiguous. Strictly speaking,
+exchanging a copy of a free program for a sum of money
+is <a href="/philosophy/selling.html"> selling the program</a>, 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.”</p>
+<p>
+See <a href="/philosophy/selling.html">Selling Free Software</a>
for
+further discussion of this issue.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="SharingEconomy">“Sharing economy”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+A more suitable term for businesses like Uber is the
+“piecework service economy.”</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Skype">“Skype”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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 <a
+href="/philosophy/proprietary/proprietary-surveillance.html#SpywareInSkype">
+spies on its users</a>. 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 <a
href="https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:Skype_Replacement">
+numerous free Skype replacements</a>.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="SoftwareIndustry">“Software Industry”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The term “software industry” encourages people to imagine
+that software is always developed by a sort of factory and then
+delivered to “consumers.” The free software community
+shows this is not the case. Software businesses exist, and various
+businesses develop free and/or nonfree software, but those that
+develop free software are not run like factories.</p>
+<p>
+The term “industry” is being used as propaganda by
+advocates of software patents. They call software development
+“industry” and then try to argue that this means it should
+be subject to patent monopolies. <a
+href="https://web.archive.org/web/20071215073111/http://eupat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/";
+title="archived version of http://eupat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/">The
+European Parliament, rejecting software patents in 2003, voted to
+define “industry” as “automated production of
+material goods.”</a></p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="SourceModel">“Source model”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!--#if expr="$LANGUAGE_SUFFIX = /^.(es)$/" -->
+<!-- TRANSLATORS: translate if this word is used often in your
+ language to refer to mobile computers; otherwise,
+ fill the translation with a space. -->
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Terminal">“Terminal”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+
+<p>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.</p>
+<!--#endif -->
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Theft">“Theft”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+Under the US legal system, copyright infringement is not theft.
+<a
+href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=473&invol=207">
+Laws about theft are not applicable to copyright infringement.</a>
+The supporters of repressive copyright are making an appeal to
+authority—and misrepresenting what authority says.</p>
+<p>
+To refute them, you can point to this
+<a
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/04/harper-lee-kill-mockingbird-copyright">
+real case</a> which shows what can properly be described as
+“copyright theft.”</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement,
+recognized that
+<a
href="http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129/">“piracy”
+and “theft” are smear-words.</a></p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="TrustedComputing">“Trusted Computing”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+<a href="/philosophy/can-you-trust.html">“Trusted
computing”</a> is
+the proponents' name for a scheme to redesign computers so that
+application developers can trust your computer to obey them instead of
+you. From their point of view, it is “trusted”; from your
+point of view, it is “treacherous.”
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Vendor">“Vendor”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Please don't use the term “vendor” to refer generally to
+anyone that develops or packages software. Many programs
+are developed in order to sell copies, and their developers are
+therefore their vendors; this even includes some free software packages.
+However, many programs are developed by volunteers or organizations
+which do not intend to sell copies. These developers are not vendors.
+Likewise, only some of the packagers of GNU/Linux distributions are
+vendors. We recommend the general term “supplier” instead.
+</p>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-STOP -->
+
+<hr />
+<blockquote id="fsfs"><p class="big">This essay is published
+in <a
href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free
+Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
+M. Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007,
+2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016 Free Software Foundation,
Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2017/02/25 18:29:24 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/words-to-avoid.pt-br-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/words-to-avoid.pt-br-diff.html
diff -N po/words-to-avoid.pt-br-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/words-to-avoid.pt-br-diff.html 25 Feb 2017 18:29:24 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,1310 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
+<title>Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or
Confusing
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or
Confusing</h2>
+
+<p>
+There are a number of words and phrases that we recommend avoiding, or
+avoiding in certain contexts and usages. Some are ambiguous or
+misleading; others presuppose a viewpoint that we disagree with, and
+we hope you disagree with it too.</p>
+
+<div class="announcement">
+<blockquote><p>Also note <a
href="/philosophy/categories.html">Categories of Free
+Software</a>,
+<a href="/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html">Why Call It The
+Swindle?</a></p></blockquote>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-START
--> “<a
+ href="#Ad-blocker">Ad-blocker</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Access">Access</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Alternative">Alternative</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Assets">Assets</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#BSD-style">BSD-style</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Closed">Closed</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#CloudComputing">Cloud Computing</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Commercial">Commercial</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Compensation">Compensation</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Consume">Consume</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Consumer">Consumer</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Content">Content</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#CreativeCommonsLicensed">Creative Commons
licensed</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Creator">Creator</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#DigitalGoods">Digital Goods</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#DigitalLocks">Digital Locks</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#DigitalRightsManagement">Digital Rights
Management</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Ecosystem">Ecosystem</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#FLOSS">FLOSS</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#ForFree">For free</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#FOSS">FOSS</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#FreelyAvailable">Freely available</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Freeware">Freeware</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#GiveAwaySoftware">Give away software</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Google">Google</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Hacker">Hacker</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#IntellectualProperty">Intellectual property</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#LAMP">LAMP system</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Linux">Linux system</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Market">Market</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Monetize">Monetize</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#MP3Player">MP3 player</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Open">Open</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#PC">PC</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Photoshop">Photoshop</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Piracy">Piracy</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#PowerPoint">PowerPoint</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Protection">Protection</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#RAND">RAND</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#SaaS">SaaS</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#SellSoftware">Sell software</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#SharingEconomy">Sharing economy</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Skype">Skype</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#SoftwareIndustry">Software Industry</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#SourceModel">Source model</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!--#if expr="$LANGUAGE_SUFFIX = /^.(es)$/" -->
+<!-- TRANSLATORS: translate if this word is used often in your
+ language to refer to mobile computers; otherwise,
+ fill the translation with a space. -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->“<a
+ href="#Terminal">Terminal</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY
--><!--#endif
+ --><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
+ href="#Theft">Theft</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#TrustedComputing">Trusted Computing</a>”
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM
--> “<a
+ href="#Vendor">Vendor</a>”
+<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-STOP
--></p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-START -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Ad-blocker">“Ad-blocker”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+When the purpose of some program is to block advertisements,
+“ad-blocker” is a good term for it. However, the GNU
+browser IceCat blocks advertisements that track the user as
+consequence of broader measures to prevent surveillance by web sites.
+This is not an “ad-blocker,” this is
+<em>surveillance protection</em>.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Access">“Access”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+The <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">criterion for free
software</a>
+is not about who has “access” to the program; the four
+essential freedoms concern what a user that has a copy of the program
+is allowed to 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 <em>obligated</em> to do that for you; you do not have
+a <em>right</em> to demand a copy of that program from any
user.</p>
+<p>
+In particular, if you write a program yourself and never offer a copy
+to anyone else, that program is free software albeit in a trivial way,
+because every user that has a copy has the four essential freedoms
+(since the only such user is you).</p>
+<p>
+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 that isn't a
+requirement of free software.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Alternative">“Alternative”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+We believe that distribution as free software is the only ethical way
+to make software available for others to use. The other methods,
+<a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">nonfree
+software</a>
+and <a href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">Service
+as a Software Substitute</a> subjugate their users. We do not think
+it is good to offer users those “alternatives” to free
+software.
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Assets">“Assets”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+To refer to published works as “assets”, or “digital
+assets”, is even worse than calling
+them <a href="#Content">“content”</a> — it
presumes
+they have no value to society except commercial value.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="BSD-style">“BSD-style”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The expression “BSD-style license” leads to confusion because it
+<a href="/licenses/bsd.html">lumps together licenses that have
+important differences</a>. 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.</p>
+<p>
+To avoid confusion, it is best to
+name <a href="/licenses/license-list.html"> the specific license in
+question</a> and avoid the vague term “BSD-style.”</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Closed">“Closed”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Describing nonfree software as “closed” clearly refers to
+the term “open source.” In the free software movement,
+<a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"> we do not want
to
+be confused with the open source camp</a>, so we
+are careful to avoid saying things that would encourage people to lump us in
+with them. For instance, we avoid describing nonfree software as
+“closed.” We call it “nonfree” or
+<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">
+“proprietary”</a>.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="CloudComputing">“Cloud Computing”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The term “cloud computing” (or
+just <a name="Cloud">“cloud”</a>, 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 (or, could we say,
+“cloudy”?).
+</p>
+
+<p>
+When thinking about or responding to a statement someone else has made
+using this term, the first step is to clarify the topic. What
+scenario is the statement about? What is a good, clear term for that
+scenario? Once the topic is clearly formulated, coherent thought
+about it becomes possible.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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
+<a
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/25/hackers-spooks-cloud-antiauthoritarian-dream">surveillance</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Another meaning (which overlaps that but is not the same thing)
+is <a href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">
+Service as a Software Substitute</a>, which denies you control over
+your computing. You should never use SaaSS.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Another meaning is renting a remote physical server, or virtual server.
+These practices are ok under certain circumstances.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Another meaning is accessing your own server from your own mobile device.
+That raises no particular ethical issues.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+The <a
href="http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-145/SP800-145.pdf">
+NIST definition of "cloud computing"</a> 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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Curiously, Larry Ellison, a proprietary software developer,
+also <a
href="http://www.cnet.com/news/oracles-ellison-nails-cloud-computing/">
+noted the vacuity of the term “cloud computing.”</a> He
+decided to use the term anyway because, as a proprietary software
+developer, he isn't motivated by the same ideals as we are.
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Commercial">“Commercial”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Please don't use “commercial” as a synonym for
+“nonfree.” That confuses two entirely different
+issues.</p>
+<p>
+A program is commercial if it is developed as a business activity. A
+commercial program can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of
+distribution. Likewise, a program developed by a school or an
+individual can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of
+distribution. The two questions—what sort of entity developed
+the program and what freedom its users have—are independent.</p>
+<p>
+In the first decade of the free software movement, free software
+packages were almost always noncommercial; the components of the
+GNU/Linux operating system were developed by individuals or by
+nonprofit organizations such as the FSF and universities. Later, in
+the 1990s, free commercial software started to appear.</p>
+<p>
+Free commercial software is a contribution to our community, so we
+should encourage it. But people who think that
+“commercial” means “nonfree” will tend to
+think that the “free commercial” combination is
+self-contradictory, and dismiss the possibility. Let's be careful not
+to use the word “commercial” in that way.</p>
+
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Compensation">“Compensation”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+To speak of “compensation for authors” in connection with
+copyright carries the assumptions that (1) copyright exists for the
+sake of authors and (2) whenever we read something, we take on a debt
+to the author which we must then repay. The first assumption is
+simply
+<a href="/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html">false</a>, and
+the second is outrageous.
+</p>
+<p>
+“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.
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Consume">“Consume”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+“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 <em>uses them up</em>.
+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 <span class="removed"><del><strong>simply an
error.</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>stretching the
word so far that it snaps.</em></ins></span> Playing a
+recording, or running a program, does not consume it.</p>
+
+<p>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>The term</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>Those who use</em></ins></span>
“consume” <span class="inserted"><ins><em>in this context will say
they
+don't mean it literally. What, then, does it mean? It means to regard
+copies of software and other works from a narrow economistic point of
+view. “Consume”</em></ins></span> is associated with the
economics of
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>uncopyable</strong></del></span>
+material <span class="removed"><del><strong>products,</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>commodities, such as the fuel or electricity
that a car uses
+up. Gasoline is a commodity,</em></ins></span> and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>leads</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>so is electricity. Commodities
+are <em>fungible</em>: there is nothing special about a drop of
+gasoline that your car burns today versus another drop that it burned
+last week.</p>
+
+<p>Do we want</em></ins></span> people to <span
class="removed"><del><strong>transfer its
+conclusions unconsciously to copiable digital works
—</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>think of writings
(software, news, any other
+kind) as a commodity, with the assumption that there is nothing
+special about any one story, article, program, or song? Should we
+treat them as fungible? That is the twisted viewpoint of</em></ins></span> an
<span class="removed"><del><strong>error</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>economist, or the accountant of a publishing
company. It is no
+surprise</em></ins></span> that proprietary software <span
class="removed"><del><strong>developers (and other publishers) dearly
+wish</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>would like
you</em></ins></span> to <span
class="removed"><del><strong>encourage.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>think of the use
+of software as a commodity.</em></ins></span> Their twisted viewpoint comes
through
+clearly
+in <a
href="http://www.businessinsider.com/former-google-exec-launches-sourcepoint-with-10-million-series-a-funding-2015-6">this
+article</a>, which also refers to publications as
+“<a href="#Content">content</a>.”</p>
+
+<p>
+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 <a href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org/">Digital
+Restrictions Management</a> (DRM) facilities in digital devices. If
+users think what they do with these devices is “consume,”
+they may see such restrictions as natural.</p>
+
+<p>
+It also encourages the acceptation of “streaming”
+services, which use DRM to <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>perversely</em></ins></span> limit <span
class="removed"><del><strong>use of digital recordings</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>listening</em></ins></span> to <span
class="removed"><del><strong>a
+form</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>music
so</em></ins></span> that
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>it</em></ins></span> fits the <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>assumptions of the</em></ins></span> word
“consume.”</p>
+
+<p>
+Why is this perverse usage spreading? Some may feel that the term
+sounds <span class="removed"><del><strong>sophisticated; if that attracts
you,</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>sophisticated,
but</em></ins></span> 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.</p>
+
+<p>
+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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>reject</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>avoid</em></ins></span>
+using the term “consume” for them. <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>What to use instead?</em></ins></span>
+We <span class="inserted"><ins><em>prefer specific verbs such as “listen
to”,
+“watch”, “read” or “look at”,
+since they help to restrain the tendency to overgeneralize.</p>
+
+<p>When it is absolutely necessary to generalize about all kinds of
+works and all media, we</em></ins></span> recommend <span
class="removed"><del><strong>saying
+that someone “experiences”</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“experience” or
+“give attention to” for</em></ins></span> an artistic work or a
work
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>stating</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>to
+present</em></ins></span> a point of view, and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>that someone
“uses”</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“use” for</em></ins></span> a
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>practical</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>practically
+useful</em></ins></span> work.</p>
+
+<p>See also the following entry.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Consumer">“Consumer”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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
+<a href="#Consume">the previous entry</a>), which leads people to
+impose on copiable digital works the economic conclusions that were
+drawn about uncopiable material products.</p>
+<p>
+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 <a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">directly
+exercise control over what a program does</a>.</p>
+<p>
+To describe people who are not limited to passive use of works, we
+suggest terms such as “individuals” and
+“citizens,” rather than “consumers.”</p>
+<p>
+This problem with the word “consumer” has
+been <a
href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/11/capitalism-language-raymond-williams">noted
before</a>.
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Content">“Content”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+If you want to describe a feeling of comfort and satisfaction, by all
+means say you are “content,” but using the word as a
+noun to describe 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.”
+</p>
+<p>
+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. This was also recognized by Tom Chatfield
+<a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/aug/02/how-to-deal-with-trump-trolls-online">in
the Guardian</a>:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>
+Content itself is beside the point—as the very use of words like
+content suggests. The moment you start labelling every single piece of
+writing in the world “content,” you have conceded its
+interchangeability: its primary purpose as mere grist to the metrical
+mill.
+</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>See also <a
href="http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/">Courtney
+Love's open letter to Steve Case</a> and search for “content
+provider” in that page. Alas, Ms. Love is unaware that the term
+“intellectual property” is
+also <a href="#IntellectualProperty"> biased and
confusing</a>.</p>
+<p>
+However, as long as other people use the term “content
+provider,” political dissidents can well call themselves
+“malcontent providers.”</p>
+<p>
+The term “content management” takes the prize for vacuity.
+“Content” means “some sort of information,”
+and “management” in this context means “doing
+something with it.” So a “content management
+system” is a system for doing something to some sort of
+information. Nearly all programs fit that description.</p>
+
+<p>
+In most cases, that term really refers to a system for updating pages
+on a web site. For that, we recommend the term “web site revision
+system” (WRS).</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="CreativeCommonsLicensed">“Creative Commons
licensed”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+To encourage people to pay attention to the most important
+distinction, always specify <em>which</em> 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.
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Creator">“Creator”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The term “creator” as applied to authors implicitly
+compares them to a deity (“the creator”). The term is
+used by publishers to elevate authors' moral standing above that of
+ordinary people in order to justify giving them increased copyright
+power, which the publishers can then exercise in their name. We
+recommend saying “author” instead. However, in many cases
+“copyright holder” is what you really mean. These two
+terms are not equivalent: often the copyright holder is not the
+author.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="DigitalGoods">“Digital Goods”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="DigitalLocks">“Digital Locks”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+“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.</p>
+<p>
+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 <a
href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/01/encryption-wont-work-if-it-has-a-back-door-only-the-good-guys-have-keys-to-">encryption</a>
+invaluable for protecting our digital files. That too is a kind
+of digital lock that you have control over.</p>
+<p>
+DRM is like a lock placed on you by someone else, who refuses to give
+you the key—in other words, like <em>handcuffs</em>.
Therefore,
+the proper metaphor for DRM is “digital handcuffs,” not
+“digital locks.”</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="DigitalRightsManagement">“Digital Rights
Management”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+“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.</p>
+<p>
+Good alternatives include “Digital Restrictions
+Management,” and “digital handcuffs.”</p>
+<p>
+Please sign up to support our <a href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org/">
+campaign to abolish DRM</a>.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Ecosystem">“Ecosystem”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+The term “ecosystem” implicitly suggests an attitude of
+nonjudgmental observation: don't ask how what <em>should</em>
happen,
+just study and understand what <em>does</em> 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.</p>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="FLOSS">“FLOSS”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The term “FLOSS,” meaning “Free/Libre and Open
+Source Software,” was coined as a way
+to <a href="/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html">be neutral between free
+software and open source</a>. 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.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="ForFree">“For free”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+If you want to say that a program is free software, please don't say
+that it is available “for free.” That term specifically
+means “for zero price.” Free software is a matter of
+freedom, not price.</p>
+<p>
+Free software copies are often available for free—for example,
+by downloading via FTP. But free software copies are also available
+for a price on CD-ROMs; meanwhile, proprietary software copies are
+occasionally available for free in promotions, and some proprietary
+packages are normally available at no charge to certain users.</p>
+<p>
+To avoid confusion, you can say that the program is available
+“as free software.”</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="FOSS">“FOSS”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The term “FOSS,” meaning “Free and Open Source
+Software,” was coined as a way
+to <a href="/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html">be neutral between free
+software and open source</a>, but it doesn't really do that. If
+neutrality is your goal, “FLOSS” is better. But if you
+want to show you stand for freedom, don't use a neutral term.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="FreelyAvailable">“Freely available”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Don't use “freely available software” as a synonym for “free
+software.” The terms are not equivalent. Software is “freely
+available” if anyone can easily get a copy. “Free
+software” is defined in terms of the freedom of users that have
+a copy of it. These are answers to different questions.
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Freeware">“Freeware”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Please don't use the term “freeware” as a synonym for
+“free software.” The term “freeware” was used
+often in the 1980s for programs released only as executables, with
+source code not available. Today it has no particular agreed-on
+definition.</p>
+<p>
+When using languages other than English, please avoid
+borrowing English terms such as “free software” or
+“freeware.” It is better to translate the term “free
+software” into
+<a href="/philosophy/fs-translations.html">your
language</a>.</p>
+
+<p>
+By using a word in <a href="/philosophy/fs-translations.html">your
+own language</a>, you show that you are really referring to freedom
+and not just parroting some mysterious foreign marketing concept.
+The reference to freedom may at first seem strange or disturbing
+to your compatriots, but once they see that it means exactly what
+it says, they will really understand what the issue is.
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="GiveAwaySoftware">“Give away software”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+It's misleading to use the term “give away” to mean
+“distribute a program as free software.”
+This locution has the same
+problem as “for free”: it implies the issue is price, not
+freedom. One way to avoid the confusion is to say “release as
+free software.”</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Google">“Google”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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 “search the web” or (in some contexts) just
+“search”. Try to use a search engine that respects your
+privacy; <a href="https://duckduckgo.com/">DuckDuckGo</a> claims
not
+to track its users, although we cannot confirm.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Hacker">“Hacker”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+A hacker is someone
+who <a href="http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html"> enjoys
+playful cleverness</a>—not necessarily with computers. The
+programmers in the old
+<abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr> free
+software community of the 60s and 70s referred to themselves as
+hackers. Around 1980, journalists who discovered the hacker community
+mistakenly took the term to mean “security breaker.”</p>
+
+<p>
+Please don't spread this mistake.
+People who break security are “crackers.”</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="IntellectualProperty">“Intellectual
property”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as
+“intellectual property”—a term also applied to
+patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws
+have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised
+to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about
+“copyright,” or about “patents,” or about
+“trademarks.”</p>
+<p>
+The term “intellectual property” carries a hidden
+assumption—that the way to think about all these disparate
+issues is based on an analogy with physical objects,
+and our conception of them as physical property.</p>
+<p>
+When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial
+difference between material objects and information: information can
+be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't
+be.</p>
+<p>
+To avoid spreading unnecessary bias and confusion, it is best to adopt
+a firm policy <a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html"> not to speak or even
+think in terms of “intellectual property”</a>.</p>
+<p>
+The hypocrisy of calling these powers “rights” is
+<a href="/philosophy/wipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html">
+starting to make the World “Intellectual Property”
+Organization embarrassed</a>.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="LAMP">“LAMP system”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+“LAMP” stands for “Linux, Apache, MySQL and
+PHP”—a common combination of software to use on a web
+server, except that “Linux” in this context really refers
+to the GNU/Linux system. So instead of “LAMP” it should
+be “GLAMP”: “GNU, Linux, Apache, MySQL and
+PHP.”
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Linux">“Linux system”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Linux is the name of the kernel that Linus Torvalds developed starting
+in 1991. The operating system in which Linux is used is basically GNU
+with Linux added. To call the whole system “Linux” is
+both unfair and confusing. Please call the complete
+system <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html"> GNU/Linux</a>, both to
give
+the GNU Project credit and to distinguish the whole system from the
+kernel alone.
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Market">“Market”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the
+software users in general, as a “market.”</p>
+<p>
+This is not to say there is no room for markets in the free software community.
+If you have a free software
+support business, then you have clients, and you trade with them in a
+market. As long as you respect their freedom, we wish you success in
+your market.</p>
+<p>
+But the free software movement is a social movement, not a business,
+and the success it aims for is not a market success. We are trying to
+serve the public by giving it freedom—not competing to draw business
+away from a rival. To equate this campaign for freedom to a business's
+efforts for mere success is to deny the importance of freedom
+and legitimize proprietary software.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Monetize">“Monetize”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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”.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+A productive and ethical business can make money, but if it
+subordinates all else to profit, it is not likely to remain
+ethical.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="MP3Player">“MP3 Player”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+In the late 1990s it became feasible to make portable, solid-state
+digital audio players. Most support the patented MP3 codec, but not
+all. Some support the patent-free audio codecs Ogg Vorbis and FLAC,
+and may not even support MP3-encoded files at all, precisely to avoid
+these patents. To call such players “MP3 players” is not
+only confusing, it also privileges the MP3 that we ought to reject.
+We suggest the terms “digital audio player,”
+or simply “audio player” if context permits.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Open">“Open”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Please avoid using the term “open” or “open
+source” as a substitute for “free software.” Those terms
+refer to a <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">
+different set of views</a> based on different values. The free software
+movement campaigns for your freedom in your computing, as a matter
+of justice. The open source non-movement does not campaign for anything
+in this way.</p>
+
+<p>When referring to the open source views, it's correct to use that
+name, but please do not use that term when talking about us, our
+software, or our views—that leads people to suppose our views
+are similar to theirs.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="PC">“PC”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+It's OK to use the abbreviation “PC” to refer to a certain
+kind of computer hardware, but please don't use it with the
+implication that the computer is running Microsoft Windows. If you
+install GNU/Linux on the same computer, it is still a PC.</p>
+
+<p>
+The term “WC” has been suggested for a computer running
+Windows.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Photoshop">“Photoshop”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Please avoid using the term “photoshop” as a verb, meaning
+any kind of photo manipulation or image editing in general. Photoshop
+is just the name of one particular image editing program, which should
+be avoided since it is proprietary. There are plenty of free programs
+for editing images, such as the <a
href="/software/gimp">GIMP</a>.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Piracy">“Piracy”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as
+“piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically
+equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and
+murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have
+procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or
+sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make
+these prohibitions more complete.)
+</p>
+<p>
+If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is
+just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word
+“piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as
+“unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited
+copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available
+for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term
+such as “sharing information with your neighbor.”</p>
+
+<p>
+A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement,
+recognized that
+<a
href="http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129/">“piracy”
+and “theft” are smear words.</a></p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="PowerPoint">“PowerPoint”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Please avoid using the term “PowerPoint” to mean any kind
+of slide presentation. “PowerPoint” is just the name of
+one particular proprietary program to make presentations. For your
+freedom's sake, you should use only free software to make your
+presentations. Recommended options include TeX's <tt>beamer</tt>
+class and LibreOffice.org's Impress.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Protection">“Protection”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Publishers' lawyers love to use the term “protection” to
+describe copyright. This word carries the implication of preventing
+destruction or suffering; therefore, it encourages people to identify
+with the owner and publisher who benefit from copyright, rather than
+with the users who are restricted by it.</p>
+<p>
+It is easy to avoid “protection” and use neutral terms
+instead. For example, instead of saying, “Copyright protection lasts a
+very long time,” you can say, “Copyright lasts a very long
+time.”</p>
+<p>
+Likewise, instead of saying, “protected by copyright,” you
+can say, “covered by copyright” or just
+“copyrighted.”</p>
+<p>
+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.”</p>
+
+<p>
+The term “protection” is also used to describe malicious
+features. For instance, “copy protection” is a feature
+that interferes with copying. From the user's point of view, this is
+obstruction. So we could call that malicious feature “copy
+obstruction.” More often it is called Digital Restrictions
+Management (DRM)—see the
+<a href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org"> Defective by Design</a>
+campaign.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="RAND">“RAND (Reasonable and
Non-Discriminatory)”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Standards bodies that promulgate patent-restricted standards that
+prohibit free software typically have a policy of obtaining patent
+licenses that require a fixed fee per copy of a conforming program.
+They often refer to such licenses by the term “RAND,”
+which stands for “reasonable and non-discriminatory.”</p>
+<p>
+That term whitewashes a class of patent licenses that are normally
+neither reasonable nor nondiscriminatory. It is true that these
+licenses do not discriminate against any specific person, but they do
+discriminate against the free software community, and that makes them
+unreasonable. Thus, half of the term “RAND” is deceptive
+and the other half is prejudiced.</p>
+<p>
+Standards bodies should recognize that these licenses are
+discriminatory, and drop the use of the term “reasonable and
+non-discriminatory” or “RAND” to describe them.
+Until they do so, writers who do not wish to join in the
+whitewashing would do well to reject that term. To accept and use it
+merely because patent-wielding companies have made it widespread is to
+let those companies dictate the views you express.</p>
+<p>
+We suggest the term “uniform fee only,” or
+“UFO” for short, as a replacement. It is accurate because
+the only condition in these licenses is a uniform royalty fee.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="SaaS">“SaaS” or “Software as a
Service”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+See <a href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">Who
+Does That Server Really Serve?</a> for discussion of this
+issue.</p>
+<p>
+In Spanish we continue to use the term “software como
+servicio” because the joke of “software como ser
+vicio” (“software, as being pernicious”) is too good
+to give up.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="SellSoftware">“Sell software”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The term “sell software” is ambiguous. Strictly speaking,
+exchanging a copy of a free program for a sum of money
+is <a href="/philosophy/selling.html"> selling the program</a>, 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.”</p>
+<p>
+See <a href="/philosophy/selling.html">Selling Free Software</a>
for
+further discussion of this issue.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="SharingEconomy">“Sharing economy”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+A more suitable term for businesses like Uber is the
+“piecework service economy.”</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Skype">“Skype”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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 <a
+href="/philosophy/proprietary/proprietary-surveillance.html#SpywareInSkype">
+spies on its users</a>. 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 <a
href="https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:Skype_Replacement">
+numerous free Skype replacements</a>.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="SoftwareIndustry">“Software Industry”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+The term “software industry” encourages people to imagine
+that software is always developed by a sort of factory and then
+delivered to “consumers.” The free software community
+shows this is not the case. Software businesses exist, and various
+businesses develop free and/or nonfree software, but those that
+develop free software are not run like factories.</p>
+<p>
+The term “industry” is being used as propaganda by
+advocates of software patents. They call software development
+“industry” and then try to argue that this means it should
+be subject to patent monopolies. <a
+href="https://web.archive.org/web/20071215073111/http://eupat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/";
+title="archived version of http://eupat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/">The
+European Parliament, rejecting software patents in 2003, voted to
+define “industry” as “automated production of
+material goods.”</a></p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="SourceModel">“Source model”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!--#if expr="$LANGUAGE_SUFFIX = /^.(es)$/" -->
+<!-- TRANSLATORS: translate if this word is used often in your
+ language to refer to mobile computers; otherwise,
+ fill the translation with a space. -->
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Terminal">“Terminal”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+
+<p>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.</p>
+<!--#endif -->
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Theft">“Theft”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+Under the US legal system, copyright infringement is not theft.
+<a
+href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=473&invol=207">
+Laws about theft are not applicable to copyright infringement.</a>
+The supporters of repressive copyright are making an appeal to
+authority—and misrepresenting what authority says.</p>
+<p>
+To refute them, you can point to this
+<a
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/04/harper-lee-kill-mockingbird-copyright">
+real case</a> which shows what can properly be described as
+“copyright theft.”</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement,
+recognized that
+<a
href="http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129/">“piracy”
+and “theft” are smear-words.</a></p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="TrustedComputing">“Trusted Computing”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+<a href="/philosophy/can-you-trust.html">“Trusted
computing”</a> is
+the proponents' name for a scheme to redesign computers so that
+application developers can trust your computer to obey them instead of
+you. From their point of view, it is “trusted”; from your
+point of view, it is “treacherous.”
+</p>
+
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
+<h3 id="Vendor">“Vendor”</h3>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
+<p>
+Please don't use the term “vendor” to refer generally to
+anyone that develops or packages software. Many programs
+are developed in order to sell copies, and their developers are
+therefore their vendors; this even includes some free software packages.
+However, many programs are developed by volunteers or organizations
+which do not intend to sell copies. These developers are not vendors.
+Likewise, only some of the packagers of GNU/Linux distributions are
+vendors. We recommend the general term “supplier” instead.
+</p>
+<!-- GNUN-SORT-STOP -->
+
+<hr />
+<blockquote id="fsfs"><p class="big">This essay is published
+in <a
href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free
+Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
+M. Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007,
+2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016 Free Software Foundation,
Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2017/02/25 18:29:24 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy free-sw.nl.html stallmans-law.hr...,
GNUN <=