What does descriptive words mean

• I’ve bought two beautiful middle-sized round red wax candles. I bought two beautiful medium sized rounded red wax candles.
• Ann doesn’t want to throw away this big scratched old rectangular brown wooden chest of drawers. Ann doesn't want to throw away this big scratched old rectangular brown wooden chest of drawers.

Words to avoid (or use with caution) GNU

There are a number of words and expressions[1] that we recommend avoiding always or in certain contexts or uses. Some of them are ambiguous and misleading; other presuppose a point of view with which we do not agree, and we hope you don't agree with it either.

“Access (access)” | “ Assets (assets)” | Ecosystem (ecosystem)” | “Ad-blocker (ad blocker)” | “Alternative (alternative)” | “BSD-style (BSD style)” | Closed (closed)” | Cloud Computing (cloud computing)” | “Commercial (commercial)” | “Compensation” | “Consume (consume)” | “Consumer (consumer)” | “Content (content)” | “Copyright Owner (copyright owner)” | “Creative Commons licensed” commons” | “Creator (creator)” | “Digital Goods (digital goods)” | “Digital Locks (digital locks)” | “Digital Rights Management (digital management rights)” | FLOSS | FOSS | “For Free (free)” | “Free-to-play (free to play)” | “Freely Available (freely available)” | Freemium (free limited version)” | Freeware (free programs)” | “Give Away Software (distributing programs)” | Google (google)” | “Hacker (hacker)” | “Intellectual Property (intelligent property)” | Internet of Things (Internet of Things)” | LAMP System (LAMP system)” | “Linux System (Linux system)” | MP3 Player (MP3 player)” | Market (market)” | “Modern (modern)” | “Monetize (turn into money)” | “Open (open)” | “Opt out (refuse)” | “PC (PC)” | photoshop (photoshop)” | Piracy (piracy)” | powerpoint | “Product (product)” | “Protection (protection)” | "RAND" | SaaS | “Sell Software (sell software)” | “Sharing (personal data) (exchange of personal data)” | “Sharing economy (economy of exchange)” | Skype (to communicate via Skype)” | Software Industry (software industry)” | “Source model (source code model)” | “Theft (theft)” | “Trusted Computing (trusted computing)” | Vendor (commodity producer)"

See also categories of free and proprietary software and why call it "Swindle"?

“Access”

A common misconception is that free software think of as programs to which society has "access". Free software doesn't mean that.

The program freedom criterion is not considers who has “access” to it; four major freedoms refer to what the user is allowed to do with the program of which there is a copy. For example, freedom 2 means that the user is free to make another copy and give or sell it to you. But no user not undertakes to do this for you; you do not have rights to demand a copy of this program from any user.

In particular, if you write the program yourself and do not offer copies of it to anyone, then the program is free, albeit in a trivial sense, because every the user who has it has four essential freedoms (because you are the only such user).

In practice, when many users have copies, someone is sure to places it on the network, providing access to it to everyone. We think that people are required to do so if the program is useful. But it's not a demand for freedom programs.

There is one particular point in which the issue of access is directly related to freedom. programs: The GNU GPL allows a specific user to have access to receive the source code of the program over the network instead of the physical providing that user with a copy of the source code. This applies in in the special case where the user already has a copy of the program in non-original form.

Instead of “when software is free, the public has access to it” we use the expressions “when software is free, users have essential freedoms” or “when software is free, users have control over what the program does for them.”

“Ad-blocker” advertising)”

When the program is designed to block ads, this expression is good. describes her. However, the GNU IceCat browser blocks ads that tracks users, due to broader measures to prevent site surveillance. It's not an ad blocker, it's surveillance protection .

Alternative (alternative)”

In general, we do not describe free software as an “alternative” not free, because the word implies that everything "alternatives" are legitimate, and each additional alternative improves the user experience. As a result, this assumes that free software should coexist with software that does not respect user freedom.

We believe that free software is the only ethical way distribution of programs. Other methods, non-free replacement programs and services programs enslave their users. We don't think what to offer users are happy with such “alternatives” to free software.

Special circumstances may lead users to perform one a specific program for a specific job. For example, when a site page sends a JavaScript client program to the user's browser, and this causes the user to execute the client program, and not any other possible. In such a case, there is a reason to call any other program for this work as an alternative.

“Assets”

Talking about published works as "assets" or “digital assets” is even worse than calling them “content”: it suggests that they don’t have no public value other than commercial.

“BSD-style”

The expression "BSD-style license" is confusing because she lumps together licenses that have there are important differences. For example, the original BSD license with a clause about advertising is incompatible with the GNU General Public License, and the revised BSD license is compatible with it.

To avoid confusion, it is best to refer to the specific license in question. speech and avoid the vague expression "BSD-style".

“Closed”

The description of proprietary software as "closed" refers to the term "open source". We, members of the movement for free programs, not want to be mistakenly labeled as open source text, so we try not to say things that would encourage people lump us together with them. For example, we are not talking about non-free programs as "closed". We call them "non-free".

“Cloud Computing” calculations)”

The expression "cloud computing" (or simply "cloud" in the context of computing) - an advertising ringing word, meaning nothing intelligible. It is used to refer to the whole range of different activities, the only common characteristic of which is that in all these cases the Internet is used for something more than transferring files. So the expression is confusing. If you base your thinking on it, it will be confusing (or better say "cloudy"?).

When you consider or respond to someone else's statement that contains these words, the first step is to clarify the subject. What scheme is being issued this statement? Which expression describes this pattern well and clearly? When the subject is clearly articulated, one can think coherently.

One of the many meanings of "cloud computing" is storing your data in online services. Most of the time it's stupid because it sets you up under surveillance.

Another value (which intersects but does not exactly match the previous) - service-replacement software that denies you control over your computing. You should never use it.

Another meaning is to rent a remote physical server, or virtual server. This practice is perfectly acceptable in certain circumstances.

Another value is to access your own server from your own mobile device. In this case, no special ethical issues.

AT NIST's definition of "cloud computing" mentions three scenarios that address three different ethical issues: program-service, platform-service and infrastructure-service. However, this the definition does not correspond to the common usage of “cloud computing” because it does not include storing data in network services. The concept of a program-service, as defined by NIST, is significantly overlaps with the notion of a program replacement service, which is unfair relation to the user, but these two concepts are not equivalent.

These different computational techniques cannot even be discussed together. Best a way to avoid the confusion that the expression “cloud computing" - do not use the word "cloud" in connection with computing. Talk about the scheme you have in mind and call it a specific word.

Curiously, Larry Ellison, a proprietary software developer, also noted the inconsistency of the expression “cloudy calculations." He decided to use the expression anyway, because, being a proprietary software developer, he is not motivated the ideals that motivate us.

“Commercial”

Please do not use the word "commercial" as a synonym. the word "unfree". It mixes two completely different things.

A program is commercial if it is developed in the course of entrepreneurial activity. The commercial program may free or not free, depending on how it distribute. Similarly, the program developed by the educational institution or individual may be free or not free in depending on how it is distributed. Two questions - what the kind of person who designed the program and what freedoms it has users are independent.

In the first decade of the free software movement, free software packages programs were almost always non-commercial; operating system components GNU/Linux was developed by individuals or such non-commercial organizations such as the FSF and universities. Later, in the nineties 20th century, commercial free software began to appear.

Free commercial software contributes to our community, so we should encourage it. But people who think "commercial" means "not free", will tend to think that the combination “free commercial” is self-contradictory, and to miss this possibility. Let's carefully avoid the use of the word "commercial" in this sense.

Compensation (compensation)”

Talk of "compensation to authors" in connection with copyright carry the assumption that (1) copyright exists for the sake of authors and (2) whenever we read something, we are indebted to the author, who we have to pay. The first assumption is simply wrong, and the second outrageous.

“Copyrights Compensation” adds another twist: you should imagine that this means paying the authors, and occasionally it is and is, but in most cases this means subsidizing the same publishing companies that impose unjust laws on us.

“Consume”

“Consume” refers to what we do with food: we we absorb it, after which the food no longer exists. By analogy, we we use the same word for other products, the use of which destroys . The use of this word for durable goods uses, such as clothing or technology, is already a stretch. Application it to published works (programs, recordings on disk or in file, books on paper or in a file) that naturally exist indefinitely and which you can perform, listen to or read any a number of times is like stretching its meaning until it breaks. Neither when listening to the recording, nor when the program is executed, they are not consumed.

Those who use the word "consume" in this context they will say that they do not use it in a literal sense. But what is it means? This means that copies of programs and other works are viewed from narrow economic point of view. “Consumption” is associated with economy of material resources such as fuel or electricity, that the car consumes. Gasoline represents a material resource, so same as electricity. Such resources are replaceable by : in a drop of gasoline, that your car burns today is nothing special compared to another drop that he burned last week.

What does it mean to think of copyrighted work as a material resource, assuming that there is nothing in any story, article, program or song special? This is a perverted point of view of the owner or accountant publishing company that does not value published work as such. Not surprisingly, proprietary software developers would like to so that you think of software as a material resource. Their perverted views are clearly visible in the articles, which also publications are called “content”.

This is narrow thinking associated with the idea that we “consume content”, paves the way for laws such as the “Law on copyright of the digital millennium”, which prohibits users to hack digital Restriction Management (DRM) in digital devices. If users think that they “consume” these devices, then such restrictions may seem natural to them.

It also encourages the adoption of “streaming” services in which Digital Restriction Management is used to stubbornly restrict listening to music or watching videos, tailoring these activities to suit assumptions that follow from the word "consume".

Why is this perverted use gaining popularity? Some it seems to sound scientific, but rejecting it for reasonable reasons may be even more scientific. Some want to speak in general about different types of information environments, but ordinary verbs (“read”, “listen”, “watch”) are not suitable for this. Other can act on the basis of business interests (their own or employers). That they use the expression in prestigious forums, gives the impression that this is the “correct” expression.

Talk about “consuming” music, science fiction, or any other works of art means to treat them as material resources, not like with art. Do we want to think so about the published works? Do we want to encourage society to think so?

If you think not, please refrain with me from use of the word "consume" in this sense.

What to use instead? You can use specific verbs like how to “read”, “listen”, “watch”, “consider” because they help to avoid the tendency to overgeneralization.

If you insist on generalization, you can use the expression “pay attention” requires less stretch than the word "consume". For work practical application is best the word "use" is appropriate.

See also the following article.

“Consumer”

When the expression "consumer" is used in relation to computer users, it carries assumptions that we must reject. Some of them stem from the idea that the application program “consumes” it (see previous paragraph), which leads people to migrate to digital works that can be copied, economic conclusions drawn in relation to non-copyable material products.

In addition, when software users are referred to as “consumers”, this suggests a system in which people limited to choosing between any of the “products” available on "market". There is no place in this system for the thought that users can directly exercise control over what the program does.

To describe people who are not limited to the passive application of work, we suggest words like “individuals” and "citizens", not "consumers".

This problem with the word "consumer" noted earlier.

“Content”

If you want to convey a feeling of comfort and satisfaction, use please, this word in relation to yourself as much as you like [3], but the use of this word as a noun to describe publications and author's works is associated with an attitude to which you might just want to avoid: with regard to these work as a waste product, the purpose of which is to fill boxes and serve as a source of money. In fact, this contempt for the works as such. If you do not agree with this attitude, you can call them "works" or "publications".

Often the word “content” is used by publishers who advocate for building up the power of copyright in the name of authors (“creators,” as they say) of works. Word “content” reveals their real attitude towards these works and their authors.

For the first time we condemned this use of the word “content” in 2002. Later it was acknowledged Tom Chatfield on pages Guardian :

The “content” itself lies outside of meaning—as the the very use of words like “content”. As soon as you you begin to designate with this word each and every sample of writing in the world, you assume that they are interchangeable: that their primary the purpose is to pour water into the measuring mill.

In other words, “content” reduces writing to its own kind of slurry intended for pumping in portions along "pipes" of the Internet.

Later Peter Bradshaw noticed it too.

Here's What Happens When Film Studios Treat Films Like Clean undifferentiated “content”, a Gazprom pipe with superhero mess that can be turned off when the accountants say that it makes sense.

Martin Scorsese denounced the "content" approach to films.

The approach implied by “content” is clearly illustrated in critical description ways of developing platforms that are managed by people who found their own thinking on this concept.

In the article, this word appears here and there, along with the words "consume" and "creators". Maybe it's done to show how these people like to think.

See also open letter from Courtney Love to Steve Case; search this page for words content provider. Alas, Ms. Love is not aware that the term “intellectual property” is also biased and misleading.

However, since others use the expression "supplier content”, political dissidents might as well call themselves as “purveyors of rebellious content”.

The phrase “content management” breaks all records in terms of emptyness. “Content” means “some kind of information”, and “management” in this context means “some action with it.” So the control system content” is a system for some actions from some kind of information. Almost all programs fit this description.

In most cases, the expression actually means the update system pages on the World Wide Web. For this we recommend the expression "site editing system".

“Copyright Owner” copyright)”

Copyright is an artificial privilege granted state in the public interest and lasting a certain period time is not a natural right, like owning a house or shirt. Lawyers recognized this by pointing to the recipient of this privilege as to the "copyright holder".

Several decades ago, copyright holders began to try to reduce awareness of this position. In addition to frequent calls to the absurd notion of “intellectual property” they began to call themselves “owners copyright". Please join our resistance using instead the traditional expression "copyright holder" right."

Creative Commons licensed (under licensed under Creative Commons)”

The most important licensing characteristic of a work is whether it is free. Creative Commons publishes seven licenses; three of them are free (CC BY, CC BY-SA and CC0) and the rest are not. So say that the work is distributed “under a Creative Commons license” is not to say whether she is free or not, and to assume that the question is not important. Perhaps the statement is accurate, but such silence is harmful.

To encourage people to pay attention to the most important difference, always indicate which of the Creative Commons licenses apply, for example, “under license CC BY-SA”. If you don't know which the license is being used for a specific work, find out and then speak.

“Creator”

The word "creator" when applied to authors implicitly compares them with deity. The word is used by publishers to elevate the moral stance authors above the level of ordinary people and justify giving them higher copyright power, which publishers can then exercise from their name. We recommend saying “authors” instead. However, during many times what you really mean is "copyright holder". These expressions are not equivalent: often the copyright holder is not the author.

“Digital Goods” goods)”

The expression "digital goods" in relation to copies of copyright works identifies them as physical goods - which cannot be copied and which therefore have to be produced in industrial scale and sell. This metaphor encourages people to to judge problems related to programs or other digital works, based on their perceptions and judgments about physical goods. it also formulates problems in terms of economics, shallow and limited whose values ​​do not embrace freedom and community.

“Digital Locks” locks)”

The expression "digital locks" is used to refer to digital constraint management by some of its critics. The problem with this expression is that it fails to do justice to injustices of Digital Restrictions Management. People who have accepted this expression, have not thought it through.

Castles do not necessarily mean oppression and injustice. you probably own several locks, as well as keys or codes to them; You can consider them useful or inconvenient, but in any case they do not depress you, because you can unlock and lock them. Likewise, encryption invaluable for protecting our files. This is also a kind of digital lock, over which you have control.

Digital Restrictions Management is like a lock given to you by someone others who refuse to give you the key - in other words, it seems for handcuffs . So the correct metaphor for this is “digital handcuffs”, not “digital locks".

In a number of opposition campaigns, the unreasonable expression “digital locks”; to get things back on track, we must firmly insist on correcting this error. FSF can support campaign against "digital locks" if we agree with the merits of the case; however, when we declare our support, we defiantly replace this expression with “digital handcuffs” and say why we do what we do.

Digital Rights Management (Digital Rights Management)”

“Digital Rights Management” (DRM) refers to technical mechanisms designed to impose restrictions on users computers. The use of the word "rights" in this expression - propaganda conceived so that you, not suspecting this, looked at the problem from the point of view of those few who imposes restrictions, regardless of the point of view of the general public, on which these restrictions apply.

Good alternatives include “digital control restrictions” and “digital handcuffs”.

Please sign up to support our campaign to end digital constraint management.

“Ecosystem”

It is not recommended to describe the free software community or any other human community as an "ecosystem" because this word implies a lack of ethical judgment.

The word "ecosystem" implicitly suggests the position of a dispassionate observations: do not ask how that should happen, just study and understand what is happening in reality . In an ecosystem some organisms feed on other organisms. In terms of ecology, we we ask whether it is right that an owl eats a mouse or that a mouse eats grain, we just watch them do it. Populations are growing or fall according to the conditions; it's neither good nor bad, it's just a phenomenon of ecology, even if it comes to the extinction of the species.

In contrast, beings who take an ethical stance on their environments may choose to preserve what, without their intervention, might disappear - e. g. civil society, democracy, human rights human, peace, public health, stable climate, clean air and water, endangered species, folk crafts... and the freedom of computer users.

“FLOSS”

The term “FLOSS” stands for Free/Libre and Open Source Software free software and open source software) is conceived as way to stay neutral between "free software" and "open source" text". If your goal is neutrality, then you're better off just use “FLOSS”. But if you want to show that stand for freedom, do not use a neutral expression.

“FOSS”

The term “FOSS” stands for Free and Open Source Software. which are free and open source) was invented as a way to maintain neutrality between "free software" and "open source text”, but in reality this does not happen. If your the goal is neutrality, then "FLOSS" is better. But if you want to show that you stand for freedom, do not use neutral expression.

Instead of "FOSS" we say "free software".

“For Free”

If you want to say that the program is free, please don't say that it is available "for free". This expression means exactly “at zero cost”. Free software is a question freedom, not cost.

Copies of free software are often available for free—for example, FTP. But copies of free software are also available on CD for a fee; at the same time, copies of non-free software are sometimes available for free during promotions, and some proprietary software packages are always available free for certain users.

To avoid confusion, you can say that the program is available “like free software”.

“Free-to-play” games)”

This confusing expression (abbreviated as F2P) is used in marketing to descriptions of non-free games that do not require payment while the user has not started playing. In many of these games, in order to play well, required to pay at a later date, so the expression “free for beginning” describes them more precisely.

The use of this expression works against the movement for free programs because it teaches people to think of "free" as "free".

“Freely Available” available)”

Do not use the words "free software" as a synonym expressions "free software". These expressions are not are equivalent. The program is “free available” if anyone can easy to get a copy. “Free Software” is defined in in terms of the freedom of users who have a copy of it. These are the answers to different questions.

“Freemium” limited version)”

This confusing word is used in marketing to describe non-free programs whose standard version is free and of which there are paid non-free add-ons .

The use of this expression works against the movement for free programs because it teaches people to think of "free" as "free".

“Freeware” programs)”

Please do not use the expression "freeware" as a synonym for "free software". The expression "free program” was often used in the eighties of the XX century for designations of programs released only in executable form, when unavailable original text. Today this expression does not have a specific universally recognized definitions.

When you speak non-English, please avoid borrowing English expressions like “free software” and “freeware”. The expression “free software” is best translated into your language.

Using the words of your own language, you show what you really mean freedom, and not just repeating, like a parrot, a mysterious concept from foreign advertising. An indication of freedom may at first seem to be yours compatriots strange or seditious, but as soon as they understand what it is means exactly what it says, they will really understand what is the problem.

“Give Away Software (give away programs)”

The use of the word "distribute" in the sense of "distribute program as free” is misleading. This turnover the same problem as the word "free": it implies that It's about cost, not freedom. One way to avoid confusion - to say "release as free programs".

“Google”

Please avoid the expression "google" in the sense “search for something on the Internet”. "Google" this is just the name of one particular search engine among many others. We propose instead the expression “search in Internet” or simply “search” (in some contexts). Try to use a search engine that respects your confidentiality; e.g. DuckDuckGo claims not to track its users (the person on the part of the application of this kind to check impossible).

“Hacker”

A hacker is someone who enjoys from playful wit - not necessarily associated with computers. Programmers in the Old Free Software Community Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the sixties and seventies called themselves hackers. Around 1980, journalists who discovered community of hackers, mistook this word to mean "cracker security systems."

Please do not spread this error. People who hack security systems are “crackers”.

“Intellectual Property (intellectual property)”

Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as "intellectual property" is an expression applied also to patents, trademarks and other lesser known areas of law. These laws have so little in common and so many differences that any generalizations about them are unhealthy. It is best to talk specifically about “copyright”, “patents” or “trademarks” signs."

The expression "intellectual property" carries a hidden assumption - that the way of thinking about all these unrelated objects is based on analogy with physical objects and on our perception them as physical property.

When it comes to copying, this analogy ignores the fundamental distinction between material objects and information: information can be copy and transmit almost effortlessly, while with material objects cannot do this.

To avoid spreading unnecessary bias and confusion, it is best to just make a firm rule not speak and not even think in terms of "intellectual property."

The hypocritical designation of this power as “rights” begins embarrass the World Organization of “Intellectual property."

“Internet of Things” things)”

When companies decided to make computerized appliances that connected would be on the Internet with the manufacturer's server and, therefore, could easily spy on their users, they were aware that it would not sound very good. So they found a cute, eye-catching name: "Internet of things".

Experience shows that these products often do indeed spy for users. They are also tailored to give people biased advice. In addition, the manufacturer may sabotage the product, shutting down the server it depends on.

We call it the "Internet of Ticks".

“LAMP System” LAMP)”

“LAMP” means “Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP” is a common combination of programs for use on Internet server, except that "Linux" in this context actually means a GNU/Linux system. So instead “LAMP” should be “GLAMP”: “GNU, Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP.

“Linux System” Linux)”

Linux is the name of the kernel that Linus Torvalds developed starting from 1991 years old. Operating system in which it is used Linux is basically GNU with Linux added. If the system as a whole calling “Linux” is both unfair and confusion. Please name the complete GNU/Linux system as in order to give due to the GNU project, and in order to distinguish the system as a whole from the kernel, taken separately.

“MP3 Player” MP3)”

In the late nineties of the XX century, it became possible to produce portable solid state digital audio players. Most of them supported and still supports the proprietary MP3 codec. Some players supported patent-free Ogg Vorbis audio codecs and FLAC, and some even could not play MP3 files at all, because their developers wanted to protect themselves from MP3 patents.

If you use the expression "MP3 players" for audio players in general, it supports the MP3 format to the detriment of other formats (some of which are also technically better characteristics). Although MP3 patents have expired, it is still undesirable.

We propose the expression "digital sound player" or just a “sound player”, when it is already clear, instead of "MP3 player".

“Market”

Description of free software users or software users in general how the “market” is misleading.

It's not that the free software community has no place for the market. If you have free software support enterprise, then you have clients and you do business with them in the market. As long as you respect their freedom, we wish you success in your market.

But the free software movement is a social movement, and not a commercial enterprise, and the success to which it aspires - it is not a market success. We are trying to serve society by giving it freedom - rather than competing to break away with our enterprise from a rival. Equate this campaign for freedom with attempts enterprises to win simple success means to deny the importance of freedom and justify proprietary software.

“Modern”

The word "modern" makes sense from a descriptive point vision - for example, when it is used only to distinguish newer spells or techniques from older ones.

It becomes problematic when it carries the assumption that old methods are "old-fashioned", that is, supposedly inferior. AT industries where business makes choices and imposes them on users, the opposite is often true.

“Monetize (convert to money)”

The correct definition of the concept of "turn into money" is “to use something as a currency”. For example, human societies converted gold, silver, copper, printed paper, shells into money certain types of shellfish and stones. However, we are seeing a trend use of these words in a different sense when it means “to use something as a basis for making a profit.”

Such usage puts in the first place material gain, and not things from which it is taken out. This attitude towards a software project is unacceptable, because it would force the developers to make the program proprietary, if they came to the conclusion that releasing it as free programs are not profitable enough.

A productive and ethical enterprise can make money, but if it subordinates everything else to profit, it will hardly remain ethical.

“Open”

Please do not use the terms "open" or “open source” instead of “free program". These expressions refer to another system views based on other values. Free movement the program stands for your freedom in your computing as a matter of justice. The non-open source movement is not for anything like that. performs.

Use this name when referring to open source views legal, but please don't use it when you talk about us, our programs or our views - this leads to the fact that people They think that their views and ours are similar.

Instead of "open source" we say "free programs”

“Opt out”

When the word "refuse" is used in relation to any kind unfair treatment in computing, it implies that it minor issue of convenience. We recommend “reject”, "to beware" or "to avoid".

“PC (PC)”

It is perfectly acceptable to use the abbreviation "PC" to refer to a certain kind of computer technology, but do not use it, please if you mean this computer is running Microsoft Windows. If you install GNU/Linux on the same computer, it is still a PC.

For a Windows computer, the abbreviation "WC" is suggested.

“Photoshop”

Please avoid using the word "photoshop" in as a verb meaning any kind of photo manipulation or image editing in general. Photoshop is just the name of one specific image editing program that should be avoided as it is not free. There are many free image editing programs such as GIMP.

“Piracy”

Publishers often refer to copying they have not approved as "piracy". So they imply it's ethical is tantamount to attacking ships on the high seas, capturing and killing people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have carried out laws prohibiting copying in most, and sometimes all cases. (And still they pressure to make these bans even more more complete.)

If you do not believe that copying without the permission of the publisher is exactly like capturing or killing people, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it. Instead, available neutral expressions such as "unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited copying” in situations where when copying is illegal). Some of us might even prefer the use of such a positive expression as “the exchange of information with your neighbor."

Judge of the United States, presiding over the infringement trial copyright, acknowledged that “piracy” and “theft” are dirty expressions.

PowerPoint

Please do not use the word "PowerPoint" to mean any kind of slideshow software reports. "PowerPoint" is just the name of one specific non-free program for creating reports. For the purposes of our own freedom you should use only free programs - i.e. is not PowerPoint . Recommended options like class beamer from LaTeX system or program Impress from the LibreOffice package.

“Product”

If you're talking about a product, call it a product all you want. However when you mean a service, please don't call it "product". If the service provider calls the service "product", firmly insist on calling it "service". If the service provider names the service package "product", firmly insist on calling it "complex of services".

“Protection”

Publisher lawyers love to use the word "protection" in relation to copyright. This word means prevention of destruction or damage; thus it encourages people put yourself in the place of the owner and publisher who benefit from copyright, rather than in place of the users it restricts.

The word “protection” is easy to avoid and use instead. neutral expressions. For example, instead of saying: "Term copyright protection is very large”, you can say: “Term copyright law is very large.”

Similarly, instead of saying “copyrighted” you can use the words “is under copyright rights".

If you want to criticize copyright rather than being neutral positions, you can use the term “copyright restrictions". Thus, you can say: “Term copyright restrictions are very large.”

The word "protection" is also used to describe harmful features. For example, "copy protection" - a feature that prevents copying. From the user's point of view, this let. So we might call this harmful feature "an obstacle to copying". It's more commonly referred to as digital. Restriction Management (DRM) - See the Defect Guaranteed Campaign website.

“RAND (Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) (reasonable and non-discriminatory)”

In standards bodies that issue patent-restricted standards, prohibiting free software, there are usually rules for obtaining patents licenses that require a flat fee for each copy of a qualifying program standard. Often they point to such licenses using expression "RAND", which means "reasonable and non-discriminatory”.

This expression launders one class of patent licenses that are not normally are neither justified nor non-discriminatory. It is true that these licenses do not discriminate against any particular person, but they discriminate against the free software community, and that makes them unfounded. So half of the expression "RAND" is false and the other half is biased.

Standards bodies should recognize that these licenses are discriminatory, and stop calling them “reasonable and non-discriminatory” or "RAND". Until they do, the writers those wishing to join laundering could successfully refuse this term. Accept it for use simply because patents of the company gave it wide distribution, which means to allow these companies to dictate what views you express.

We propose the expression “fixed royalties”, or "UFO" as a substitute. It is certain, because the only a condition for these licenses is a flat royalty.

“SaaS” or “software-service”

We used to say that SaaS (short for “program-service”) represents injustice, but then we found that people have very different understandings of what activities to be considered a service. So we switched to a new expression, “program replacement service”. This expression has two advantages: it has not been used before, so our definition is unique, and it explains what is wrong.

For further discussion of the problem, see the article “Who really serving the server?

In Spanish, we continue to use the expression "software como servicio" because play on words “software como ser vicio (program as malware)” is too good to be refuse.

“Sell Software (sell programs)”

The expression "sell software" is ambiguous. Strictly speaking, exchanging a copy of a free program for any amount of money is selling the program, and there is nothing wrong with this is not. However, people usually associate the word “selling programs” with proprietary restrictions on subsequent use programs. You can express yourself more clearly and prevent confusion by saying either “distributing copies of programs for money”, or “imposition of proprietary restrictions on the use of the program.”

For further discussion of the problem, see the article "Selling Free Software".

“Sharing (personal data) (sharing personal data)”

When companies encourage or entice people to disclose their personal data and thereby waive your privacy, talk about it, please, as an "exchange". We use the word "exchange" to denote non-commercial cooperation, in including non-commercial redistribution of exact copies of published works, and we say that it is good . Please don't apply this word to practices that are harmful and dangerous.

When one company redistributes the collected personal data in another company, it is even less deserving of the name "exchange".

“Sharing economy” exchange)”

The term “sharing economy” is not a good term for services such as Uber or Airbnb, which organize business transactions between people. We use the term "exchange" to mean non-commercial cooperation, including non-commercial distribution exact copies of published works. Expansion of the meaning of the word "exchange" for these operations undermines this value, so we do not we use it in this context.

For businesses like Uber, the phrase “economy piecework services” or “part-time economy”.

Skype Skype)”

(Common among English-speaking users.) Do not use, please use the word “skype” as a verb meaning any video or telephone communication over the Internet. Skype is just a name one particular proprietary program that also spies on its users. If you want to conduct telephone and video conversations over the Internet in a way that respects both your freedom and your privacy, try one of the free replacements Skype.

“Software Industry” industry)”

The expression "software industry" encourages people to imagine imagine that programs are always developed by something like a factory, and then delivered to consumers. Free Software Community shows that this is not the case. Software development enterprises exist, and various enterprises develop free and nonfree software, but those who develop free software do not operate like factories.

The word "industry" is used for propaganda purposes by advocates software patents. They call software development "industry", and then try to prove that this means that it must be subject to patent monopolies. European Parliament, renouncing software patents in 2003, voted to determine "industry" as "automated production material goods."

“Source model” text)”

On Wikipedia, the expression "source code model" is used in an ambiguous and incomprehensible way. It seems to refer to how the source code of the program is distributed, but in the text it is mixed with development methodology. There differ as options for "open source code” and “provided source code”, but they intersect - Microsoft means the last expression is an integer an area of ​​market practice, some of which is “open source text". Thus, the expression does not actually convey coherent information, but it allows you to say “open source text” on pages describing free computer software.

“Theft”

Proponents of an overly harsh, repressive form of copyright often use words like "stolen" and “theft”, indicating copyright infringement. it subterfuge, but they would like you to take it as an objective truth.

In the US legal system, copyright infringement is not theft. Laws about theft are not applicable to copyright infringement. Supporters repressive copyright appeal to authority - and give a distorted view of what the authority says.

In disputes with them, you can bring a real case that shows what can truly be called "copyright theft".

Unauthorized copying is prohibited by copyright in many cases (not in all!), but the ban does not mean that it is bad. Generally speaking, laws are not determine what is good and what is bad. Laws are at their best an attempt at justice. If the laws (implementation) are not correspond to our ideas of good and evil (specifications), that is laws must change.

Judge of the United States, presiding over the infringement trial copyright, acknowledged that “piracy” and “theft” are dirty expressions.

“Trusted Computing” calculations)”

“Trusted calculations" - the author's name of the scheme of reorganization computers so that application developers can rely on that your computer will obey them, not you. From their point of view, he “trusted”, but with yours - “treacherous”.

Vendor (commodity producer)”

Please do not use the word "commodity producer" for instructions in general on everyone who develops programs or draws them up in the form packages.

Learn more

• 
  Letters sesame street
• 
  Ordinal numbers maths
• 
  Adjective definition for 2nd grade
• 
  Sight word examples
• 
  Jack and magic bean
• 
  Halloween scavenger hunt list
• 
  Shape theme preschool
• 
  Learning to write alphabet letters
• 
  Reading skills children
• 
  What the moon looked like on my birthday
• 
  Math for class 1