[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 gnun.mk
Added files:
gnun/philosophy: words-to-avoid.html
Log message:
(philosophy): Add `words-to-avoid'.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html?cvsroot=trans-coord&rev=1.1
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/server/gnun/ChangeLog?cvsroot=trans-coord&r1=1.63&r2=1.64
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/server/gnun/gnun.mk?cvsroot=trans-coord&r1=1.14&r2=1.15
Patches:
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>
+
+ * gnun.mk (philosophy): Add `words-to-avoid'.
+
2008-04-08 Yavor Doganov <address@hidden>
* GNUmakefile ($(rootdir)/home.$(1).shtml): Validate the Catalan
Index: server/gnun/gnun.mk
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/trans-coord/trans-coord/gnun/server/gnun/gnun.mk,v
retrieving revision 1.14
retrieving revision 1.15
diff -u -b -r1.14 -r1.15
--- server/gnun/gnun.mk 8 Apr 2008 16:35:14 -0000 1.14
+++ server/gnun/gnun.mk 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>
+
+<p>
+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>
+
+<p>
+ <a href="/philosophy/philosophy.html">Other Texts to Read</a>
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#BSD-style"
+ name="TOCBSD-style">BSD-style</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Closed"
+ name="TOCClosed">Closed</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Commercial"
+ name="TOCCommercial">Commercial</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Compensation"
+ name="TOCCompensation">Compensation</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Consumer"
+ name="TOCConsumer">Consumer</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Content"
+ name="TOCContent">Content</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Creator"
+ name="TOCCreator">Creator</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#DigitalGoods"
+ name="TOCDigitalGoods">Digital Goods</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#DigitalRightsManagement"
+ name="TOCDigitalRightsManagement">Digital Rights Management</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Ecosystem"
+ name="TOCEcosystem">Ecosystem</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#ForFree"
+ name="TOCForFree">For free</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#FreelyAvailable"
+ name="TOCFreelyAvailable">Freely available</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Freeware"
+ name="TOCFreeware">Freeware</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#GiveAwaySoftware"
+ name="TOCGiveAwaySoftware">Give away software</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Hacker"
+ name="TOCHacker">Hacker</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty"
+ name="TOCIntellectualProperty">Intellectual property</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#LAMP"
+ name="TOCLAMP">LAMP system</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Linux"
+ name="TOCLinux">Linux system</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Market"
+ name="TOCMarket">Market</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#MP3Player"
+ name="TOCMP3Player">MP3 player</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Open"
+ name="TOCOpen">Open</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#PC"
+ name="TOCPC">PC</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Piracy"
+ name="TOCPiracy">Piracy</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Protection"
+ name="TOCProtection">Protection</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#RAND"
+ name="TOCRAND">RAND</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#SellSoftware"
+ name="TOCSellSoftware">Sell software</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#SoftwareIndustry"
+ name="TOCSoftwareIndustry">Software Industry</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Theft"
+ name="TOCTheft">Theft</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TrustedComputing"
+ name="TOCTrustedComputing">Trusted Computing</a>”
+| “<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Vendor"
+ name="TOCVendor">Vendor</a>”
+</p>
+
+<h4 id="BSD-style">“BSD-style”</h4>
+<p>
+The expression “BSD-style license” 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>
+<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>
+
+
+<h4 id="Closed">“Closed”</h4>
+<p>
+Describing non-free 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 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
+“closed”. We call it “non-free” or
+<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">
+“proprietary”</a>.</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="Commercial">“Commercial”</h4>
+<p>
+Please don't use “commercial” as a synonym for
+“non-free.” 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 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
+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 90s, 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 “non-free” 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>
+
+
+<h4 id="Compensation">“Compensation”</h4>
+<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, 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.
+</p>
+
+<h4 id="Consumer">“Consumer”</h4>
+<p>
+The term “consumer”, when used to refer to computer users,
+carries unfortunate assumptions.</p>
+<p>
+Economic theory uses the terms “producer” and
+“consumer”. In that context these words are appropriate.
+But describing the users of software as “consumers”
+presumes a narrow role for them. It treats them like cattle that
+passively graze on what others make available to them.</p>
+<p>
+This kind of thinking leads to travesties like the CBDTPA
+“Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act”
+which would require copying restriction facilities in every digital
+device. If all the users do is “consume”, then why should
+they mind?</p>
+<p>
+The narrow economic vision of users as “consumers” tends
+to go hand in hand with the idea that published works are
+“content”.</p>
+<p>
+To describe people who are not limited to passive consumption on their
+computers, we suggest terms such as “individuals” and
+“citizens”.</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="Content">“Content”</h4>
+<p>
+If you want to describe a feeling of comfort and satisfaction, by all
+means say you are “content”, 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
+disrespect.</p>
+<p>
+Those who use this term 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 what they really feel.
+(See <a
href="http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html";>Courtney
+Love's open letter to Steve Case </a>(search for “content
+provider” in that page. Alas, Ms. Love is unaware that the term
+“intellectual property” is also <a href="#IntellectualProperty">
+misleading</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.
+Neither word has any specific meaning; “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. In most cases, that term
+really refers to a system for updating a website. For that, we
+recommend the term “website revision system” (WRS).</p>
+
+<h4 id="Creator">“Creator”</h4>
+<p>
+The term “creator” as applied to authors implicitly
+compares them to a deity (“the creator”). 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 “author” instead. However, in many cases
+“copyright holder” is what you really mean.</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="DigitalGoods">“Digital Goods”</h4>
+<p>
+
+The term “digital goods” as applied to copies of works of
+authorship forces them into the thought mold of physical goods —
+which cannot be copied, and which therefore have to be manufactured
+and sold.</p>
+
+<h4 id="DigitalRightsManagement">“Digital Rights Management”</h4>
+<p>
+“Digital Rights Management” refers to technical schemes
+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”, “Digital Restrictions Malware”, and
+“digital handcuffs”.</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="Ecosystem">“Ecosystem”</h4>
+<p>
+It is a mistake to describe our community (or any community) as an
+“ecosystem”, 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 “ecosystem” implicitly
+suggests a passive attitude: “Don't ask how
+things <em>should</em> be, just watch what happens to them”.</p>
+
+<p>
+By contrast, beings that have ethical responsibility can decide to
+preserve something that, on its own, would tend to vanish—such
+as civil society, democracy, human rights, peace, public health,
+… or computer users' freedom.
+</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="ForFree">“For free”</h4>
+<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>
+
+
+<h4 id="FreelyAvailable">“Freely Available”</h4>
+<p>
+Don't use “freely available” as a synonym for “free
+software.” They are not equivalent. “Freely
+available” means that anyone can easily get a copy. “Free
+software” is defined in terms of the freedom of users that have
+a copy. These are answers to different questions.
+</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="Freeware">“Freeware”</h4>
+<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>
+Also, if you use other languages than English, please try to 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>
+
+
+<h4 id="GiveAwaySoftware">“Give away software”</h4>
+<p>
+It's misleading to use the term “give away” to mean
+“distribute a program as free software.” It 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>
+
+
+<h4 id="Hacker">Hacker</h4>
+<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>
+
+
+<h4 id="IntellectualProperty">“Intellectual property”</h4>
+<p>
+Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as
+“intellectual property”—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
+“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 ideas of
+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 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 “intellectual property”</a>.</p>
+<p>
+The hypocrisy of calling these powers “rights” is
+<a href="/philosophy/wipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html">
+starting to make WIPO embarrassed</a>.</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="LAMP">“LAMP system”</h4>
+<p>
+“LAMP” stands for “Linux, Apache, MySQL and
+PHP”—a common combination of software to use on a web
+server, except that “Linux” really refers to the GNU/Linux
+system. So instead of “LAMP” it should be
+“GLAMP”: “GNU, Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP”
+</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="Linux">Linux system</h4>
+<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 distinguish the whole system from the
+kernel alone.
+</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="Market">“Market”</h4>
+<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 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>
+<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 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">“MP3 player”</h4>
+<p>
+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 “MP3 players” 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 “digital audio player”,
+or simply “audio player” if context permits.</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="Open">“Open”</h4>
+<p>
+Please avoid using the term “open” or “open
+source” as a substitute for “free software”. 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—that leads people to think we share those views.</p>
+
+<h4 id="PC">“PC”</h4>
+<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>
+
+
+<h4 id="Piracy">“Piracy”</h4>
+<p>
+Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as “piracy.”
+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>
+<p>
+If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnapping and
+murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to
+describe it. Neutral terms such as “prohibited copying”
+or “unauthorized copying” are available for use instead.
+Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as
+“sharing information with your neighbor.”</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="Protection">“Protection”</h4>
+<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 “Copyright protection lasts a
+very long time,” you can say, “Copyright lasts a very long
+time.”</p>
+<p>
+If you want to criticize copyright instead of supporting it, you can
+use the term “copyright restrictions.” So you can say,
+“Copyright restrictions last a very long time.”</p>
+
+<p>
+The term “protection” is also used to describe malicious
+features, as in “copy protection”, a feature that
+interferes with copying. From the user's point of view, this is
+obstruction. So we call that malicious feature “copy
+obstruction”.</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="RAND">“RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory)”</h4>
+<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 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 “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, 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>
+<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>
+
+
+<h4 id="SellSoftware">“Sell software”</h4>
+<p>
+The term “sell software” is ambiguous. Strictly speaking,
+exchanging a copy of a free program for a sum of money is
+“selling”; but people usually associate the term
+“sell” with proprietary restrictions on the subsequent use
+of the software. You can be more precise, and prevent confusion, by
+saying either “distributing copies of a program for a fee”
+or “imposing proprietary restrictions on the use of a
+program,” depending on what you mean.</p>
+<p>
+See <a href="/philosophy/selling.html">Selling Free Software</a> for
+more discussion of this issue.</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="SoftwareIndustry">“Software Industry”</h4>
+<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 non-free software, but those that develop free software
+are not 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="http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/";> The
+European Parliament, rejecting software patents in 2003, voted to
+define “industry” as “automated production of
+material goods”.</a></p>
+
+
+<h4 id="Theft">“Theft”</h4>
+<p>
+Copyright apologists often use words like “stolen” and
+“theft” 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>
+<p>
+So it is pertinent to mention that the legal system—at least in
+the US—rejects the idea that copyright infringement is
+“theft.” Copyright apologists are making an appeal to
+authority … and misrepresenting what authority says.</p>
+<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">“Trusted Computing”</h4>
+<p>
+<a href="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. For their point of view, it is “trusted”. From your
+point of view, it is “treacherous”.
+</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="Vendor">“Vendor”</h4>
+<p>
+Please don't use the term “vendor” 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
+vendors.
+</p>
+
+<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>
+
+</div>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+
+<div id="footer">
+<p>
+Please send FSF & 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>.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Please see the
+<a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting
+translations of this article.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyright © 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
+preserved.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2008/04/29 17:52:00 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+
+<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 mail.gnu.org:/com/mailer/aliases -->
+ <!-- Please also check you have the 2 letter language code right versus -->
+ <!-- http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/iso639.htm -->
+
+<ul class="translations-list">
+<!-- Catalan -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.ca.html">Català</a> [ca]</li>
+<!-- Czech -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.cs.html">Česky</a> [cs]</li>
+<!-- English -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html">English</a> [en]</li>
+<!-- Spanish -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.es.html">Español</a> [es]</li>
+<!-- French -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.fr.html">Français</a> [fr]</li>
+<!-- Italian -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.it.html">Italiano</a> [it]</li>
+<!-- Japanese -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.ja.html">日本語</a> [ja]</li>
+<!-- Polish -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.pl.html">Polski</a> [pl]</li>
+<!-- Brazilian Portuguese -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.pt-br.html">português do
Brasil</a> [pt-br]</li>
+<!-- Romanian -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.ro.html">Română</a> [ro]</li>
+<!-- Russian -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.ru.html">Русский</a> [ru]</li>
+<!-- Serbian -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.sr.html">Српски</a> [sr]</li>
+</ul>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
- trans-coord/gnun server/gnun/ChangeLog server/g...,
Yavor Doganov <=