[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
trans-coord/gnun/philosophy words-to-avoid.html
|
From: |
Yavor Doganov |
|
Subject: |
trans-coord/gnun/philosophy words-to-avoid.html |
|
Date: |
Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:10:11 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /sources/trans-coord
Module name: trans-coord
Changes by: Yavor Doganov <yavor> 09/09/28 18:10:11
Modified files:
gnun/philosophy: words-to-avoid.html
Log message:
Automatic sync from the master www repository.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html?cvsroot=trans-coord&r1=1.14&r2=1.15
Patches:
Index: words-to-avoid.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/trans-coord/trans-coord/gnun/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html,v
retrieving revision 1.14
retrieving revision 1.15
diff -u -b -r1.14 -r1.15
--- words-to-avoid.html 2 Aug 2009 18:10:18 -0000 1.14
+++ words-to-avoid.html 28 Sep 2009 18:10:10 -0000 1.15
@@ -1,17 +1,17 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<title>Confusing Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding - GNU Project
+<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 to Avoid (or use with care)</h2>
+<h2>Some Confusing or Loaded Words and Phrases to Avoid (or Use with Care)</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>
+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 hope you
+disagree with.</p>
<div class="announcement">
Also note <a href="/philosophy/categories.html">Categories
@@ -92,8 +92,9 @@
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>
+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
@@ -102,55 +103,54 @@
<h4 id="Closed">“Closed”</h4>
<p>
-Describing non-free software as “closed” clearly refers to
+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 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/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>
<h4 id="CloudComputing">“Cloud Computing”</h4>
<p>
-The term “cloud computing” is marketing buzzword with no
+The term “cloud computing” is a marketing buzzword with no
clear meaning. It is used for a range of different activities whose
-only common quality is that they use the Internet for something beyond
+only common characteristic is that they use the Internet for something beyond
transmitting files. Thus, the term is a nexus of confusion. If you
-try to use it in your thinking, your thinking will be vague.
+base your thinking on it, your thinking will be vague.
</p>
<p>
-When thinking about or responding to a statement someone else made
+When thinking about or responding to a statement someone else has made
using this term, the first step is to clarify the topic. Which kind
-of activity is the statement really about, and what is a good term for
-that activity? Pressing yourself (or the person who made the
-statement) to clarify the topic will direct the discussion towards a
+of activity is the statement really about, and what is a good, clear term for
+that activity? Once the topic is clear, the discussion can head for a
useful conclusion.
</p>
<p>
Curiously, Larry Ellison, a proprietary software developer,
also <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13953_3-10052188-80.html";>
-noted the vacuity of the term “cloud computing”</a>. He
+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 we are.
+developer, he isn't motivated by the same ideals as we are.
</p>
<h4 id="Commercial">“Commercial”</h4>
<p>
Please don't use “commercial” as a synonym for
-“non-free.” That confuses two entirely different
+“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 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>
+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
@@ -160,7 +160,7 @@
<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
+“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>
@@ -179,12 +179,15 @@
<h4 id="Consumer">“Consumer”</h4>
<p>
-The term “consumer”, when used to refer to computer users,
-carries unfortunate assumptions.</p>
+The term “consumer,” when used to refer to computer users,
+is loaded with assumptions we should reject.</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”
+The terms “producer” and
+“consumer” come from economic theory, and presuppose
+the assumptions and narrow prespective of economic theory.
+That warps your thinking.</p>
+<p>
+In addition, 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>
@@ -194,9 +197,9 @@
device. If all the users do is “consume”, then why should
they mind?</p>
<p>
-The narrow economic vision of users as “consumers” tends
+The narrow economic conception of users as “consumers” tends
to go hand in hand with the idea that published works are
-“content”.</p>
+“content.”</p>
<p>
To describe people who are not limited to passive consumption on their
computers, we suggest terms such as “individuals” and
@@ -206,56 +209,56 @@
<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 disparages the works themselves.</p>
+means say you are “content,” but using the word as a
+noun to describe written and other works of authorship adopts an
+attitude you might rather avoid. It regards these works as a
+commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and make money. In effect,
+it disparages the works themselves.</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
+(“creators,” as they say) of the works. The term
“content” reveals their real attitude towards these works and
their authors.
(See <a
href="http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html";>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">
-misleading</a>.)</p>
+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”,
+“Content” means “some sort of information,”
and “management” in this context means “doing
-something with it”. So a “content management
+something with it.” So a “content management
system” is a system for doing something to some sort of
-information. That description fits most programs.</p>
+information. Nearly all programs fit that description.</p>
<p>
In most cases, that term really refers to a system for updating pages
-on a website. For that, we recommend the term “website revision
+on a Web site. For that, we recommend the term “Web site 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>
-
+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.</p>
<h4 id="DigitalGoods">“Digital Goods”</h4>
-<p>
+o<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>
+The term “digital goods,” as applied to copies of works of
+authorship, erroneously identifies them with physical
+goods—which cannot be copied, and which therefore have to be
+manufactured and sold.</p>
<h4 id="DigitalRightsManagement">“Digital Rights Management”</h4>
<p>
@@ -267,27 +270,26 @@
whom these restrictions are imposed.</p>
<p>
Good alternatives include “Digital Restrictions
-Management”, “Digital Restrictions Malware”, and
-“digital handcuffs”.</p>
+Management,” and “digital handcuffs.”</p>
<h4 id="Ecosystem">“Ecosystem”</h4>
<p>
It is a mistake to describe the free software community, or any human
-community, as an “ecosystem”, because that word implies
+community, as an “ecosystem,” because that word implies
the absence of (1) intention 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, merely an ecological
+evolve according to their fitness: if a species is weak and goes
+extinct, that's neither right nor wrong, merely an ecological
phenomenon. The term “ecosystem” implicitly suggests a
-passive attitude: “Don't ask how things <em>should</em> be, just
-watch what happens to them”.</p>
+attitude of passive observation: don't ask how what <em>should</em>
+happen, just study what does happen.</p>
<p>
By contrast, beings that adopt an active stance towards their
surroundings, and have ideas of ethical responsibility, can decide to
preserve things that, on their own, would tend to vanish—such as
civil society, democracy, human rights, peace, public health, clean
-air and water, endangered species, traditional arts, … and
+air and water, endangered species, traditional arts…and
computer users' freedom.
</p>
@@ -309,13 +311,13 @@
“as free software.”</p>
-<h4 id="FreelyAvailable">“Freely Available”</h4>
+<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
+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. These are answers to different questions.
+a copy of it. These are answers to different questions.
</p>
@@ -327,7 +329,7 @@
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
+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
@@ -346,7 +348,8 @@
<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
+“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>
@@ -361,17 +364,17 @@
<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>
+mistakenly took the term to mean “security breaker.”</p>
<p>
Please don't spread this mistake.
-People who break security are “crackers”.</p>
+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
+“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
@@ -380,30 +383,32 @@
<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>
+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 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
+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 WIPO embarrassed</a>.</p>
+starting to make the World “Intellectual Property”
+Organization 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”.
+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>
@@ -414,7 +419,7 @@
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
+the GNU Project credit and to distinguish the whole system from the
kernel alone.
</p>
@@ -422,18 +427,20 @@
<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>
+software users in general, as a “market.”</p>
<p>
-This is not to say we're against markets. If you have a free software
+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 take them
+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'
-campaign for mere success is to diminish the significance of freedom.</p>
+efforts for mere success is to deny the importance of freedom
+and legitimize proprietary software.</p>
<h4 id="MP3Player">“MP3 player”</h4>
@@ -442,24 +449,24 @@
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
+these 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”,
+privilege which encourages people to continue using that vulnerable format.
+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
+source” as a substitute for “free software”. Those terms
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>
+appropriate; but please use it to label us or our work—that
+leads people to think we share those views.</p>
<h4 id="PC">“PC”</h4>
<p>
@@ -474,11 +481,11 @@
<h4 id="Photoshop">“Photoshop”</h4>
<p>
-Please avoid using the term “Photoshop” as a verb, meaning
+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 proprietary image editing program, and
-there are plenty of free alternatives, such as <a
-href="/software/gimp">GIMP</a>.</p>
+is just the name of one particular image editing program, which should
+be avoided since it is proprietary. There are plenty of free
+alternatives, such as <a href="/software/gimp">GIMP</a>.</p>
<h4 id="Piracy">“Piracy”</h4>
@@ -506,8 +513,8 @@
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, and there are plenty of free
-alternatives, such as the <tt>beamer</tt> class available with any
-(La)TeX distribution.</p>
+alternatives, such as TeX's <tt>beamer</tt> class and OpenOffice.org's
+Impress.</p>
<h4 id="Protection">“Protection”</h4>
@@ -519,23 +526,23 @@
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
+instead. For example, instead of saying, “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,
+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, as in “copy protection”, a feature that
+features. For instance, “copy protection” is 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>
+obstruction. So we can call that malicious feature “copy
+obstruction.”</p>
-<h4 id="RAND">“RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory)”</h4>
+<h4 id="RAND">“RAND (reasonable and nondiscriminatory)”</h4>
<p>
Standards bodies that promulgate patent-restricted standards that
prohibit free software typically have a policy of obtaining patent
@@ -543,18 +550,18 @@
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
+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 “RAND” is deceptive and the
-other half is prejudiced.</p>
+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, other writers who do not wish to join in the
-white-washing would do well to reject that term. To accept and use it
+nondiscriminatory” 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>
@@ -567,7 +574,7 @@
<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
+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”
@@ -575,7 +582,7 @@
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>
+further discussion of this issue.</p>
<h4 id="SoftwareIndustry">“Software Industry”</h4>
@@ -584,8 +591,8 @@
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>
+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
@@ -594,7 +601,7 @@
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>
+material goods.”</a></p>
<h4 id="Theft">“Theft”</h4>
@@ -607,7 +614,7 @@
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>
+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
@@ -618,19 +625,19 @@
<h4 id="TrustedComputing">“Trusted Computing”</h4>
<p>
<a href="/philosophy/can-you-trust.html">“Trusted computing”</a> is
-the proponents name for a scheme to redesign computers so that
+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”.
+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
+anyone that develops or packages software. Many programs
are developed in order to sell copies, and their developers are
-therefore their vendors; this includes some free software packages.
+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
@@ -680,7 +687,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2009/08/02 18:10:18 $
+$Date: 2009/09/28 18:10:10 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- trans-coord/gnun/philosophy words-to-avoid.html,
Yavor Doganov <=