[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

trans-coord/gnun server/gnun/ChangeLog server/g...

From: Yavor Doganov
Subject: trans-coord/gnun server/gnun/ChangeLog server/g...
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:52:01 +0000

CVSROOT:        /cvsroot/trans-coord
Module name:    trans-coord
Changes by:     Yavor Doganov <yavor>   08/04/29 17:52:01

Modified files:
        gnun/server/gnun: ChangeLog 
Added files:
        gnun/philosophy: words-to-avoid.html 

Log message:
        (philosophy): Add `words-to-avoid'.


Index: server/gnun/ChangeLog
RCS file: /cvsroot/trans-coord/trans-coord/gnun/server/gnun/ChangeLog,v
retrieving revision 1.63
retrieving revision 1.64
diff -u -b -r1.63 -r1.64
--- server/gnun/ChangeLog       8 Apr 2008 20:28:38 -0000       1.63
+++ server/gnun/ChangeLog       29 Apr 2008 17:52:01 -0000      1.64
@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
+2008-04-29  Yavor Doganov  <address@hidden>
+       * (philosophy): Add `words-to-avoid'.
 2008-04-08  Yavor Doganov  <address@hidden>
        * GNUmakefile ($(rootdir)/home.$(1).shtml): Validate the Catalan

Index: server/gnun/
RCS file: /cvsroot/trans-coord/trans-coord/gnun/server/gnun/,v
retrieving revision 1.14
retrieving revision 1.15
diff -u -b -r1.14 -r1.15
--- server/gnun/ 8 Apr 2008 16:35:14 -0000       1.14
+++ server/gnun/ 29 Apr 2008 17:52:01 -0000      1.15
@@ -65,6 +65,7 @@
                software-literary-patents \
                sun-in-night-time \
                why-copyleft \
-               why-free
+               why-free \
+               words-to-avoid
 server :=      takeaction

Index: philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
RCS file: philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
diff -N philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/words-to-avoid.html      29 Apr 2008 17:52:00 -0000      1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,668 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<title>Confusing Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding - GNU Project
+- Free Software Foundation (FSF)</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Some Confusing or Loaded Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding</h2>
+There are a number of words and phrases which we recommend avoiding,
+or avoiding in certain contexts and usages.  The reason is either that
+they are ambiguous, or that they imply an opinion that we hope you may
+not entirely agree with.</p>
+<div class="announcement">
+Also note <a href="/philosophy/categories.html">Categories
+of Free Software</a>.</div>
+  <a href="/philosophy/philosophy.html">Other Texts to Read</a>
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#BSD-style"
+       name="TOCBSD-style">BSD-style</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Closed"
+       name="TOCClosed">Closed</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Commercial"
+       name="TOCCommercial">Commercial</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Compensation"
+       name="TOCCompensation">Compensation</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Consumer"
+       name="TOCConsumer">Consumer</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Content"
+       name="TOCContent">Content</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Creator"
+       name="TOCCreator">Creator</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#DigitalGoods"
+       name="TOCDigitalGoods">Digital Goods</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#DigitalRightsManagement"
+       name="TOCDigitalRightsManagement">Digital Rights Management</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Ecosystem"
+       name="TOCEcosystem">Ecosystem</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#ForFree"
+       name="TOCForFree">For free</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#FreelyAvailable"
+       name="TOCFreelyAvailable">Freely available</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Freeware"
+       name="TOCFreeware">Freeware</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#GiveAwaySoftware"
+       name="TOCGiveAwaySoftware">Give away software</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Hacker"
+       name="TOCHacker">Hacker</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty"
+       name="TOCIntellectualProperty">Intellectual property</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#LAMP"
+       name="TOCLAMP">LAMP system</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Linux"
+       name="TOCLinux">Linux system</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Market"
+       name="TOCMarket">Market</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#MP3Player"
+       name="TOCMP3Player">MP3 player</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Open"
+       name="TOCOpen">Open</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#PC"
+       name="TOCPC">PC</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Piracy"
+       name="TOCPiracy">Piracy</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Protection"
+       name="TOCProtection">Protection</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#RAND"
+       name="TOCRAND">RAND</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#SellSoftware"
+       name="TOCSellSoftware">Sell software</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#SoftwareIndustry"
+       name="TOCSoftwareIndustry">Software Industry</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Theft"
+       name="TOCTheft">Theft</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TrustedComputing"
+       name="TOCTrustedComputing">Trusted Computing</a>&rdquo;
+| &ldquo;<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Vendor"
+       name="TOCVendor">Vendor</a>&rdquo;
+<h4 id="BSD-style">&ldquo;BSD-style&rdquo;</h4>
+The expression &ldquo;BSD-style license&rdquo; leads to confusion because it
+<a href="/philosophy/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 GPL, but the
+revised BSD license is compatible with the GPL.</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 &ldquo;BSD-style.&rdquo;</p>
+<h4 id="Closed">&ldquo;Closed&rdquo;</h4>
+Describing non-free software as &ldquo;closed&rdquo; clearly refers to
+the term &ldquo;open source&rdquo;.  In the Free Software Movement,
+<a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"> we want to avoid
+being confused with the more recent Open Source Movement</a>, so we
+are careful to avoid usage that would encourage people to lump us in
+with them.  Therefore, we avoid describing non-free software as
+&ldquo;closed&rdquo;.  We call it &ldquo;non-free&rdquo; or
+<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">
+<h4 id="Commercial">&ldquo;Commercial&rdquo;</h4>
+Please don't use &ldquo;commercial&rdquo; as a synonym for
+&ldquo;non-free.&rdquo; That confuses two entirely different
+A program is commercial if it is developed as a business activity.  A
+commercial program can be free or non-free, depending on its license.
+Likewise, a program developed by a school or an individual can be free
+or non-free, depending on its license.  The two questions, what sort
+of entity developed the program and what freedom its users have, are
+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 90s, free commercial software started to appear.</p>
+Free commercial software is a contribution to our community, so we
+should encourage it.  But people who think that
+&ldquo;commercial&rdquo; means &ldquo;non-free&rdquo; will tend to
+think that the &ldquo;free commercial&rdquo; combination is
+self-contradictory, and dismiss the possibility.  Let's be careful not
+to use the word &ldquo;commercial&rdquo; in that way.</p>
+<h4 id="Compensation">&ldquo;Compensation&rdquo;</h4>
+To speak of &ldquo;compensation for authors&rdquo; in connection with
+copyright carries the assumptions that (1) copyright exists for the
+sake of authors and (2) whenever we read something, the author is
+working for us so we owe him money.  The first assumption is simply
+<a href="misinterpreting-copyright.html">false</a>, and the second is
+rather outrageous.
+<h4 id="Consumer">&ldquo;Consumer&rdquo;</h4>
+The term &ldquo;consumer&rdquo;, when used to refer to computer users,
+carries unfortunate assumptions.</p>
+Economic theory uses the terms &ldquo;producer&rdquo; and
+&ldquo;consumer&rdquo;.  In that context these words are appropriate.
+But describing the users of software as &ldquo;consumers&rdquo;
+presumes a narrow role for them.  It treats them like cattle that
+passively graze on what others make available to them.</p>
+This kind of thinking leads to travesties like the CBDTPA
+&ldquo;Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act&rdquo;
+which would require copying restriction facilities in every digital
+device.  If all the users do is &ldquo;consume&rdquo;, then why should
+they mind?</p>
+The narrow economic vision of users as &ldquo;consumers&rdquo; tends
+to go hand in hand with the idea that published works are
+To describe people who are not limited to passive consumption on their
+computers, we suggest terms such as &ldquo;individuals&rdquo; and
+<h4 id="Content">&ldquo;Content&rdquo;</h4>
+If you want to describe a feeling of comfort and satisfaction, by all
+means say you are &ldquo;content&rdquo;, but using it as a noun to
+describe written and other works of authorship is worth avoiding.
+That usage adopts a specific attitude towards those works: that they
+are an interchangeable commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and
+make money.  In effect, it treats the works themselves with
+Those who use this term are often the publishers that push for
+increased copyright power in the name of the authors
+(&ldquo;creators&rdquo;, as they say) of the works.  The term
+&ldquo;content&rdquo; reveals what they really feel.
+(See <a 
+Love's open letter to Steve Case </a>(search for &ldquo;content
+provider&rdquo; in that page.  Alas, Ms. Love is unaware that the term
+&ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; is also <a href="#IntellectualProperty">
+However, as long as other people use the term &ldquo;content
+provider&rdquo;, political dissidents can well call themselves
+&ldquo;malcontent providers&rdquo;.</p>
+The term &ldquo;content management&rdquo; takes the prize for vacuity.
+Neither word has any specific meaning; &ldquo;content&rdquo; means
+&ldquo;some sort of information&rdquo;, and &ldquo;management&rdquo;
+in this context means &ldquo;doing something with it&rdquo;.  So a
+&ldquo;content management system&rdquo; is a system for doing
+something to some sort of information.  In most cases, that term
+really refers to a system for updating a website.  For that, we
+recommend the term &ldquo;website revision system&rdquo; (WRS).</p>
+<h4 id="Creator">&ldquo;Creator&rdquo;</h4>
+The term &ldquo;creator&rdquo; as applied to authors implicitly
+compares them to a deity (&ldquo;the creator&rdquo;).  The term is
+used by publishers to elevate the authors' moral stature above that of
+ordinary people, to justify increased copyright power that the
+publishers can exercise in the name of the authors.  We recommend
+saying &ldquo;author&rdquo; instead.  However, in many cases
+&ldquo;copyright holder&rdquo; is what you really mean.</p>
+<h4 id="DigitalGoods">&ldquo;Digital Goods&rdquo;</h4>
+The term &ldquo;digital goods&rdquo; as applied to copies of works of
+authorship forces them into the thought mold of physical goods &mdash;
+which cannot be copied, and which therefore have to be manufactured
+and sold.</p>
+<h4 id="DigitalRightsManagement">&ldquo;Digital Rights Management&rdquo;</h4>
+&ldquo;Digital Rights Management&rdquo; refers to technical schemes
+designed to impose restrictions on computer users.  The use of the
+word &ldquo;rights&rdquo; 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>
+Good alternatives include &ldquo;Digital Restrictions
+Management&rdquo;, &ldquo;Digital Restrictions Malware&rdquo;, and
+&ldquo;digital handcuffs&rdquo;.</p>
+<h4 id="Ecosystem">&ldquo;Ecosystem&rdquo;</h4>
+It is a mistake to describe our community (or any community) as an
+&ldquo;ecosystem&rdquo;, because that word implies the absence of (1)
+intension and (2) ethics.  In an ecosystem, species evolve according
+to their fitness.  If something is weak, it goes extinct, and that's
+neither right nor wrong.  The term &ldquo;ecosystem&rdquo; implicitly
+suggests a passive attitude: &ldquo;Don't ask how
+things <em>should</em> be, just watch what happens to them&rdquo;.</p>
+By contrast, beings that have ethical responsibility can decide to
+preserve something that, on its own, would tend to vanish&mdash;such
+as civil society, democracy, human rights, peace, public health,
+&hellip; or computer users' freedom.
+<h4 id="ForFree">&ldquo;For free&rdquo;</h4>
+If you want to say that a program is free software, please don't say
+that it is available &ldquo;for free.&rdquo; That term specifically
+means &ldquo;for zero price.&rdquo; Free software is a matter of
+freedom, not price.</p>
+Free software copies are often available for free&mdash;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>
+To avoid confusion, you can say that the program is available
+&ldquo;as free software.&rdquo;</p>
+<h4 id="FreelyAvailable">&ldquo;Freely Available&rdquo;</h4>
+Don't use &ldquo;freely available&rdquo; as a synonym for &ldquo;free
+software.&rdquo; They are not equivalent.  &ldquo;Freely
+available&rdquo; means that anyone can easily get a copy.  &ldquo;Free
+software&rdquo; is defined in terms of the freedom of users that have
+a copy.  These are answers to different questions.
+<h4 id="Freeware">&ldquo;Freeware&rdquo;</h4>
+Please don't use the term &ldquo;freeware&rdquo; as a synonym for
+&ldquo;free software.&rdquo; The term &ldquo;freeware&rdquo; was used
+often in the 1980s for programs released only as executables, with
+source code not available.  Today it has no particular agreed-on
+Also, if you use other languages than English, please try to avoid
+borrowing English terms such as &ldquo;free software&rdquo; or
+&ldquo;freeware.&rdquo; It is better to translate the term &ldquo;free
+software&rdquo; into
+<a href="/philosophy/fs-translations.html">your language</a>.</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.
+<h4 id="GiveAwaySoftware">&ldquo;Give away software&rdquo;</h4>
+It's misleading to use the term &ldquo;give away&rdquo; to mean
+&ldquo;distribute a program as free software.&rdquo; It has the same
+problem as &ldquo;for free&rdquo;: it implies the issue is price, not
+freedom.  One way to avoid the confusion is to say &ldquo;release as
+free software.&rdquo;</p>
+<h4 id="Hacker">Hacker</h4>
+A hacker is someone
+who <a href="";> enjoys
+playful cleverness</a>&mdash;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 &ldquo;security breaker&rdquo;.</p>
+Please don't spread this mistake.
+People who break security are &ldquo;crackers&rdquo;.</p>
+<h4 id="IntellectualProperty">&ldquo;Intellectual property&rdquo;</h4>
+Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as
+&ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;&mdash;a term that also includes
+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
+&ldquo;copyright,&rdquo; or about &ldquo;patents,&rdquo; or about
+The term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; carries a hidden
+assumption&mdash;that the way to think about all these disparate
+issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of
+physical property.</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
+To avoid the bias and confusion of this term, it is best to make a
+firm decision <a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html"> not to speak or even
+think in terms of &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;</a>.</p>
+The hypocrisy of calling these powers &ldquo;rights&rdquo; is
+<a href="/philosophy/wipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html">
+starting to make WIPO embarrassed</a>.</p>
+<h4 id="LAMP">&ldquo;LAMP system&rdquo;</h4>
+&ldquo;LAMP&rdquo; stands for &ldquo;Linux, Apache, MySQL and
+PHP&rdquo;&mdash;a common combination of software to use on a web
+server, except that &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; really refers to the GNU/Linux
+system.  So instead of &ldquo;LAMP&rdquo; it should be
+&ldquo;GLAMP&rdquo;: &ldquo;GNU, Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP&rdquo;
+<h4 id="Linux">Linux system</h4>
+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 &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; 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 distinguish the whole system from the
+kernel alone.
+<h4 id="Market">&ldquo;Market&rdquo;</h4>
+It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the
+software users in general, as a &ldquo;market&rdquo;.</p>
+This is not to say we're against markets.  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>
+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&mdash;not competing to take them
+away from a rival.  To equate this campaign for freedom to a business'
+campaign for mere success is to diminish the significance of freedom.</p>
+<h4 id="MP3Player">&ldquo;MP3 player&rdquo;</h4>
+In the late 1990's 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
+the patents.  To call such players &ldquo;MP3 players&rdquo; is not
+only confusing, it also puts MP3 in an undeserved position of
+privilege which helps the patent holders continue to attack our
+community.  We suggest the terms &ldquo;digital audio player&rdquo;,
+or simply &ldquo;audio player&rdquo; if context permits.</p>
+<h4 id="Open">&ldquo;Open&rdquo;</h4>
+Please avoid using the term &ldquo;open&rdquo; or &ldquo;open
+source&rdquo; as a substitute for &ldquo;free software&rdquo;.  They
+refer to a <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">
+different position</a> based on different values.  Free software is
+a political movement; open source is a development model.
+When referring to the open source position, using its name is
+appropriate; but please don't label us or our work with its
+slogan&mdash;that leads people to think we share those views.</p>
+<h4 id="PC">&ldquo;PC&rdquo;</h4>
+It's ok to use the abbreviation &ldquo;PC&rdquo; 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>
+<h4 id="Piracy">&ldquo;Piracy&rdquo;</h4>
+Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as &ldquo;piracy.&rdquo;
+In this way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent
+to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the
+people on them.</p>
+If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnapping and
+murder, you might prefer not to use the word &ldquo;piracy&rdquo; to
+describe it.  Neutral terms such as &ldquo;prohibited copying&rdquo;
+or &ldquo;unauthorized copying&rdquo; are available for use instead.
+Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as
+&ldquo;sharing information with your neighbor.&rdquo;</p>
+<h4 id="Protection">&ldquo;Protection&rdquo;</h4>
+Publishers' lawyers love to use the term &ldquo;protection&rdquo; 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>
+It is easy to avoid &ldquo;protection&rdquo; and use neutral terms
+instead.  For example, instead of &ldquo;Copyright protection lasts a
+very long time,&rdquo; you can say, &ldquo;Copyright lasts a very long
+If you want to criticize copyright instead of supporting it, you can
+use the term &ldquo;copyright restrictions.&rdquo; So you can say,
+&ldquo;Copyright restrictions last a very long time.&rdquo;</p>
+The term &ldquo;protection&rdquo; is also used to describe malicious
+features, as in &ldquo;copy protection&rdquo;, a feature that
+interferes with copying.  From the user's point of view, this is
+obstruction.  So we call that malicious feature &ldquo;copy
+<h4 id="RAND">&ldquo;RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory)&rdquo;</h4>
+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 &ldquo;RAND,&rdquo;
+which stands for &ldquo;reasonable and non-discriminatory.&rdquo;</p>
+That term white-washes a class of patent licenses that are normally
+neither reasonable nor non-discriminatory.  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 &ldquo;RAND&rdquo; is deceptive and the
+other half is prejudiced.</p>
+Standards bodies should recognize that these licenses are
+discriminatory, and drop the use of the term &ldquo;reasonable and
+non-discriminatory&rdquo; or &ldquo;RAND&rdquo; to describe them.
+Until they do so, other writers who do not wish to join in the
+white-washing 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>
+We suggest the term &ldquo;uniform fee only,&rdquo; or
+&ldquo;UFO&rdquo; for short, as a replacement.  It is accurate because
+the only condition in these licenses is a uniform royalty fee.</p>
+<h4 id="SellSoftware">&ldquo;Sell software&rdquo;</h4>
+The term &ldquo;sell software&rdquo; is ambiguous.  Strictly speaking,
+exchanging a copy of a free program for a sum of money is
+&ldquo;selling&rdquo;; but people usually associate the term
+&ldquo;sell&rdquo; with proprietary restrictions on the subsequent use
+of the software.  You can be more precise, and prevent confusion, by
+saying either &ldquo;distributing copies of a program for a fee&rdquo;
+or &ldquo;imposing proprietary restrictions on the use of a
+program,&rdquo; depending on what you mean.</p>
+See <a href="/philosophy/selling.html">Selling Free Software</a> for
+more discussion of this issue.</p>
+<h4 id="SoftwareIndustry">&ldquo;Software Industry&rdquo;</h4>
+The term &ldquo;software industry&rdquo; 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 non-free software, but those that develop free software
+are not like factories.</p>
+The term &ldquo;industry&rdquo; is being used as propaganda by
+advocates of software patents.  They call software development
+&ldquo;industry&rdquo; and then try to argue that this means it should
+be subject to patent
+monopolies.  <a href="";> The
+European Parliament, rejecting software patents in 2003, voted to
+define &ldquo;industry&rdquo; as &ldquo;automated production of
+material goods&rdquo;.</a></p>
+<h4 id="Theft">&ldquo;Theft&rdquo;</h4>
+Copyright apologists often use words like &ldquo;stolen&rdquo; and
+&ldquo;theft&rdquo; to describe copyright infringement.  At the same
+time, they ask us to treat the legal system as an authority on ethics:
+if copying is forbidden, it must be wrong.</p>
+So it is pertinent to mention that the legal system&mdash;at least in
+the US&mdash;rejects the idea that copyright infringement is
+&ldquo;theft.&rdquo; Copyright apologists are making an appeal to
+authority &hellip; and misrepresenting what authority says.</p>
+The idea that laws decide what is right or wrong is mistaken in
+general.  Laws are, at their best, an attempt to achieve justice; to
+say that laws define justice or ethical conduct is turning things
+upside down.</p>
+<h4 id="TrustedComputing">&ldquo;Trusted Computing&rdquo;</h4>
+<a href="can-you-trust.html">&ldquo;Trusted computing&rdquo;</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.  For their point of view, it is &ldquo;trusted&rdquo;.  From your
+point of view, it is &ldquo;treacherous&rdquo;.
+<h4 id="Vendor">&ldquo;Vendor&rdquo;</h4>
+Please don't use the term &ldquo;vendor&rdquo; to refer generally to
+anyone that develops or packages a software package.  Many programs
+are developed in order to sell copies, and their developers are
+therefore their vendors; this 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
+<div class="announcement">
+Also note <a href="/philosophy/categories.html">Categories
+of Free Software</a>.</div>
+<hr />
+<h4>This essay is published in <a href="/doc/book13.html"><cite>Free Software,
+Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman</cite></a>.</h4>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+Please send FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to 
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> 
+the FSF.
+<br />
+Please send broken links and other corrections or suggestions to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+Please see the
+<a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting
+translations of this article.
+Copyright &copy; 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007
+Free Software Foundation, Inc.,</p>
+<address>51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110, USA</address>
+<p>Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
+permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is 
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2008/04/29 17:52:00 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+<div id="translations">
+<h4>Translations of this page</h4>
+  <!-- Please keep this list alphabetical, and in the original -->
+  <!-- language if possible, otherwise default to English -->
+  <!-- If you do not have it English, please comment what the -->
+  <!-- English is.  If you add a new language here, please -->
+  <!-- advise address@hidden and add it to -->
+  <!--    - in /home/www/bin/nightly-vars either TAGSLANG or WEBLANG -->
+  <!--    - in /home/www/html/server/standards/README.translations.html -->
+  <!--      one of the lists under the section "Translations Underway" -->
+  <!--    - if there is a translation team, you also have to add an alias -->
+  <!--      to -->
+  <!-- Please also check you have the 2 letter language code right versus -->
+  <!-- -->
+<ul class="translations-list">
+<!-- Catalan -->
+<!-- Czech -->
+<!-- English -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html">English</a>&nbsp;[en]</li>
+<!-- Spanish -->
+<!-- French -->
+<!-- Italian -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/">Italiano</a>&nbsp;[it]</li>
+<!-- Japanese -->
+<!-- Polish -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/">Polski</a>&nbsp;[pl]</li>
+<!-- Brazilian Portuguese -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/">portugu&#x0ea;s do 
+<!-- Romanian -->
+<!-- Russian -->
+<!-- Serbian -->

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]