/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html-diff

<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: (削除) 1.70 (削除ここまで) (追記) 1.100 -->
<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays term" -->
<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" (追記ここまで) -->
<title>Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing
- GNU Project - Free Software (削除) Foundation (FSF)</title> (削除ここまで) (追記) Foundation</title>
<style type="text/css" media="print,screen"><!--
#word-list a { line-height: 1.8em; text-decoration: none; }
-->
</style>
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.translist" --> (追記ここまで)
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<!--#include (削除) virtual="/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.translist" (削除ここまで) (追記) virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" (追記ここまで) -->
(追記) <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
<div class="article reduced-width"> (追記ここまで)
<h2>Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing</h2>
(追記) <div class="thin"></div> (追記ここまで)
<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 (追記) disagree with, and
we (追記ここまで) hope you disagree (削除) with.</p> (削除ここまで) (追記) with it too.</p> (追記ここまで)
<div (削除) 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>
| (削除ここまで) (追記) id="word-list" class="emph-box">
<p><span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-START --> “<a
 href="#Ad-blocker">Ad-blocker</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
 href="#Access">Access</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#Alternative">Alternative</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
 href="#ArtificialIntelligence">Artificial Intelligence</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
 href="#Assets">Assets</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#BSD-style">BSD-style</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#Closed">Closed</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#CloudComputing">Cloud Computing</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#Commercial">Commercial</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#Compensation">Compensation</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#Consume">Consume</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#Consumer">Consumer</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#Content">Content</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
 href="#ContentManagementSystem">Content Management System</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
 href="#CopyrightOwner">Copyright Owner</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
 href="#CreativeCommonsLicensed">Creative Commons licensed</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#Creator">Creator</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#DigitalGoods">Digital Goods</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#DigitalLocks">Digital Locks</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#DigitalRightsManagement">Digital Rights Management</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#Ecosystem">Ecosystem</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
 href="#FLOSS">FLOSS</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#ForFree">For free</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
 href="#FOSS">FOSS</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#FreelyAvailable">Freely available</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
 href="#Freemium">Freemium</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
 href="#FreeToPlay">Free-to-play</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#Freeware">Freeware</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#GiveAwaySoftware">Give away software</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
 href="#Google">Google</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#Hacker">Hacker</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#IntellectualProperty">Intellectual property</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
 href="#InternetofThings">Internet of Things</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#LAMP">LAMP system</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#Linux">Linux system</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#Market">Market</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
 href="#Modern">Modern</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#Monetize">Monetize</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#MP3Player">MP3 player</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#Open">Open</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
 href="#OptOut">Opt out</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#PC">PC</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#Photoshop">Photoshop</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#Piracy">Piracy</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
 href="#Players">Players (said of businesses)</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#PowerPoint">PowerPoint</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
 href="#Product">Product</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#Protection">Protection</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#RAND">RAND</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
 href="#SaaS">SaaS</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#SellSoftware">Sell software</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
 href="#SharingPersonalData">Sharing (personal data)</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
 href="#SharingEconomy">Sharing economy</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
 href="#Skype">Skype</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
 href="#SmartSpeaker">Smart speaker</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#SoftwareIndustry">Software Industry</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
 href="#SourceModel">Source model</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
 href="#Steward">Steward</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!--#if expr="$LANGUAGE_SUFFIX	= /^.(es)\$/" -->
<!-- TRANSLATORS: translate if this word is used often in your
 language to refer to mobile computers; otherwise,
 fill the translation with a space. -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->“<a
 href="#Terminal">Terminal</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --><!--#endif
 --><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#Theft">Theft</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> “<a
 href="#Tool">Tool</a>”
|<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#TrustedComputing">Trusted Computing</a>”
(削除) | (削除ここまで)
(追記) |<span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --> (追記ここまで) “<a
 href="#Vendor">Vendor</a>”
(削除) </p>
<h4 id="Alternative">“Alternative”</h4> (削除ここまで)
(追記) <span class="gnun-split"></span><!-- GNUN-SORT-STOP --></p>
</div>
<hr class="no-display" />
<div class="announcement">
<p>Also note <a href="/philosophy/categories.html">Categories of Free
Software</a>,
<a href="/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html">Why Call It The
Swindle?</a></p>
</div>
<hr class="no-display" />
<!-- GNUN-SORT-START -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Ad-blocker">“Ad-blocker”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
(削除) We don't present free software (削除ここまで)
(追記) When the purpose of some program is to block advertisements,
“ad-blocker” is a good term for it. However, the GNU
browser IceCat blocks advertisements that track the user (追記ここまで) as
(追記) consequence of broader measures to prevent surveillance by web sites.
This is not (追記ここまで) an (削除) “alternative”, (削除ここまで) (追記) “ad-blocker,” this is
<em>surveillance protection</em>.</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Access">“Access”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p>
It is a common misunderstanding to think free software means that the
public has “access” to a program. That is not what free
software means.</p>
<p>
The <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">criterion for free software</a>
is not about who has “access” to the program; the four
essential freedoms concern what a user that has a copy of the program
is allowed to do with it. For instance, freedom 2 says that that user
is free to make another copy and give or sell it to you. But no user
is <em>obligated</em> to do that for you; you do not have
a <em>right</em> to demand a copy of that program from any user.</p>
<p>
In particular, if you write a program yourself and never offer a copy
to anyone else, that program is free software albeit in a trivial way, (追記ここまで)
because (追記) every user that has a copy has the four essential freedoms
(since the only such user is you).</p>
<p>
In practice, when many users have copies of a program, someone is sure
to post (追記ここまで) it
(削除) presents (削除ここまで) (追記) on the internet, giving everyone access to it. We think
people ought to do that, if the program is useful. But that isn't (追記ここまで) a (削除) goal (削除ここまで)
(追記) requirement of free software.</p>
<p>
There is one specific point in which a question (追記ここまで) of having (追記) access is
directly pertinent to free software: the GNU GPL permits giving a
particular user access to download a program's source code as a
substitute for physically giving that user a copy of the source. This
applies to the special case in which the user already has a copy of
the program in non-source form.</p>
<blockquote><p>Instead of <b>with free software,
the public has access to the program</b>,
we say, <b>with free software, the users have the essential
freedoms</b> and <b>with free software, the users have control
of what the program does for them</b>.</p>
</blockquote>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Alternative">“Alternative”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p>
We don't describe (追記ここまで) free software (削除) alongside proprietary
software. That presupposes (削除ここまで) (追記) in general as an
“alternative” to proprietary, because (追記ここまで) that (削除) proprietary (削除ここまで) (追記) word presumes
all the “alternatives” are legitimate and each additional
one makes users better off. In effect, it assumes that free (追記ここまで) software (削除) is
legitimate.</p> (削除ここまで)
(追記) ought to coexist with software that does not respect users'
freedom.</p> (追記ここまで)
<p>
We believe that (追記) distribution as free software is (追記ここまで) the only ethical way
to (削除) distribute (削除ここまで) (追記) make (追記ここまで) software (削除) is (削除ここまで) (追記) available for others to use. The other methods,
<a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">nonfree
software</a>
and <a href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">Service (追記ここまで)
as (削除) free
software. Thus, we aim (削除ここまで) (追記) a Software Substitute</a> subjugate their users. We do not think
it is good to offer users those “alternatives” (追記ここまで) to (削除) make (削除ここまで) free (削除) software more (削除ここまで)
(追記) software.</p>
<p>
Special circumstances can drive users toward running one particular
program for a certain job. For instance, when a web page sends
JavaScript client code to the user's browser, that drives users toward
running that specific client program rather (追記ここまで) than (追記) any possible other.
In such a case, there is a reason to describe any other code for that
job as (追記ここまで) an alternative. (削除) Our goal (削除ここまで)
(追記) </p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="ArtificialIntelligence">“Artificial Intelligence”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p>
The moral panic over ChatGPT and other “large language
models” (“LLMs”) is partly due to the confusion
caused by the marketing campaign to call them “artificial
intelligence.” Are these systems properly described as
artificial intelligence? Should we call them that?</p>
<p>
Normally, “intelligence” means having knowledge and
understanding, at least about some kinds of points. A true artificial
intelligence should therefore have some knowledge and understanding.
General artificial intelligence would be able to know and understand
about all sorts of things; that (追記ここまで) is (追記) beyond today's technology, but
there are systems of limited artificial intelligence which can have
knowledge and understanding about certain kinds of topics.</p>
<p>
These contrast with “large language models”
(“LLMs”), systems that predict which words are likely in (追記ここまで) a (削除) world where (削除ここまで)
(追記) given textual context. They do not begin to grasp
the <em>meanings</em> of their textual inputs and outputs.</p>
<p>
An LLM knows nothing and understands nothing. Its output merely
follows of usage frequencies of phrases in specific contexts.
Anything it states or implies about reality is not based on knowledge
of the situation. Seeking a correct answer to a serious question in
an LLM-based chatbot is folly, as many have learned to their dismay.
</p>
<p>
That weakness is not a matter of implementation details—it is
<a href="https://www.mindprison.cc/p/the-question-that-no-llm-can-answer">
inherent in the basic working of LLMs</a>. An amusing and
illuminating example is what they do
with <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/27/why-googles-ai-cant-spell-google-or-anything-else/">any
question about the spelling of some word or words</a>. Another is
what happens when training
inputs <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.13829">present a statement
in a context that says or implies it is not true</a>. (Here's
a <a href="https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/google-ai-overview-scp-horror-fiction-real">real
example</a>.) The industry papers over such flaws with kludges.
</p>
<p>
Scammers sometimes lead LLMs
to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/money/2026/jun/07/ai-chatgpt-shopping-scams-fake-websites">
falsely associate a real (or former) brand name with a fake (scam) web
site</a>, as a means to swindle users who ask the LLM for information
about the brand. LLMs can't detect this because they have no actual
grasp on reality.</p>
<p>
LLMs often offer medical advice, but it is not based on understanding
medicine. One
patient <a href="https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/former-pastor-sues-openai-over-chatgpt-health-advice">
claims that bad medical advice from ChatGPT led him almost to
death</a>.
</p>
<p>
Here is how we recommend using terminology to categorize systems based
on trained neural networks:</p>
<ul>
<li>
“Artificial intelligence” is a suitable term for systems
that have understanding and knowledge within some domain, whether
narrow or wide.</li>
<li>
“Generative systems” is a suitable term for systems that
generate artistic works for which “truth” and
“falsehood” are not applicable.</li>
<li>
“Bullshit generators” is a suitable term for large
language models, since they generate smooth-sounding verbiage that appears
to assert things about the world, without understanding that verbiage
semantically. This conclusion has received support from the paper
titled <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5">
<cite>ChatGPT is bullshit</cite></a> by <a href="#ft1">Hicks et al.</a>
(2024).</li>
</ul>
<p>
Those three categories of jobs are mostly implemented, nowadays, with
“machine learning systems.” That means they work with data
consisting of many numeric values, and adjust those numbers based on
“training data”. Thus, the best term for (追記ここまで) all (削除) programs (削除ここまで) (追記) of those
categories together is “machine learning”. A machine
learning system may be a bullshit generator, a generative system, or
artificial intelligence.</p>
<p>
A little more general is “supposed intelligence”, since
people (追記ここまで) are (削除) free, so (削除ここまで) (追記) asked to suppose that these systems are intelligent but
only some of them really are intelligent.</p>
<p>
Most machine learning systems today are implemented as “neural
network systems”, meaning (追記ここまで) that (追記) they work by
simulating a network of “neurons”—highly simplified
models of real nerve cells. However, there are other kinds of machine
learning which work differently.</p>
<p>
Not (追記ここまで) all (追記) machine learning systems are as unintelligent as LLMs.
There are systems which use machine learning to recognize specific
important patterns in data. Their output can reflect real knowledge
(even if not with perfect accuracy)—for instance, whether an
image of tissue from an organism <a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1107032">shows a certain medical condition</a>,
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/03/early-warning-system-track-asian-hornets-university-of-exeter">whether
an insect is a bee-eating Asian
hornet</a>, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/aug/19/ai-may-help-experts-identify-toddlers-at-risk-of-autism-researchers-say">whether
a toddler may be at risk of becoming autistic</a>, how a particular
chain of amino acids
will <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaFold">fold up into a
protein</a>, or how well a certain art
work <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2025/sep/27/caravaggio-the-lute-player-badminton-ai-analysis">matches
some artist's style and habits as determined via data mining from
other works by that artist</a>.</p>
<p>
Developers validate these systems by comparing the systems' judgments
against known facts. Based on (追記ここまで) their (追記) empirical accuracy, at least as
good as the trained human specialists, we can conclude that the system
understands the questions it was designed to answer, which justifies
calling these systems “artificial intelligence.”</p>
<p>
Likewise the systems that antisocial media platforms use to decide
what next to show or recommend to a user so that perse will use it for
a longer period and not disconnect, demonstrate empirical success in
understanding that narrow field, since the companies validate that
they correctly predict what will “increase user
engagement.” These systems facilitate manipulation of those
users. Such success can be <em>harmful to the (追記ここまで) users (追記) and to society as
a whole</em>, but that is a different question.</p>
<p>
Businesses and governments use similar systems to evaluate how to deal
with potential clients or people accused of various things. These
evaluation results (追記ここまで) are (削除) free. (削除ここまで) (追記) often validated carelessly and the result can
be systematic injustice. But since it attempts to understand, it
qualifies at least as attempted artificial intelligence.</p>
<p>
As that example shows, artificial intelligence can be broken, or
systematically biased, or work badly, just as natural intelligence
can. When they do the jobs they were designed to do, that can harm
others in small ways or disastrous ways. Here we are concerned with
whether specific instances fit the term “intelligence”,
not with whether they do good or harm.</p>
<p>
There are also systems of artificial intelligence which 
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jul/25/google-deepmind-takes-step-closer-to-cracking-top-level-maths">solve
math problems</a>, using machine learning to explore the space of
possible solutions to find a valid solution. They qualify as
artificial intelligence because they test the validity of a candidate
solution using rigorous mathematical methods.</p>
<p>
When bullshit generators output text that appears to make factual
statements but describe nonexistent people, places, and things, or
events that did not happen, it is fashionable to call those statements
“hallucinations” or say that the system “made them
up.” That fashion spreads a conceptual confusion, because it
presumes that the system has in general some sort of understanding of
the meaning of its output, and that its understanding was
mistaken <em>in a specific case</em>.</p>
<p>
That presumption is false: these systems have no semantic
understanding whatsoever. LLMs as such cannot have any knowledge of
the real world, because <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.03551">
they have no way to validate putative “beliefs” against the
real world</a>. (追記ここまで)
</p>
(削除) <h4 id="BSD-style">“BSD-style”</h4> (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Assets">“Assets”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p>
To refer to published works as “assets,” or “digital
assets,” is even worse than calling
them <a href="#Content">“content”</a>—it dismisses
their value to society aside from commercial value.</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="BSD-style">“BSD-style”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
The expression “BSD-style license” leads to confusion because it
<a (削除) href="/philosophy/bsd.html">lumps (削除ここまで) (追記) href="/licenses/bsd.html">lumps (追記ここまで) together licenses that have
important differences</a>. For instance, the original BSD license
with the advertising clause is incompatible with the GNU General
Public License, but the revised BSD license is compatible with the
GPL.</p>
<p>
To avoid confusion, it is best to
name <a href="/licenses/license-list.html"> the specific license in
question</a> and avoid the vague term “BSD-style.”</p>
(削除) <h4 id="Closed">“Closed”</h4> (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Closed">“Closed”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
Describing nonfree software as “closed” clearly refers to
the term “open (削除) source”. (削除ここまで) (追記) source.” (追記ここまで) In the free software movement,
<a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"> we do not want to
be confused with the open source camp</a>, so we
are careful to avoid saying things that would encourage people to lump us in
with them. For instance, we avoid describing nonfree software as
(削除) “closed”. (削除ここまで)
(追記) “closed.” (追記ここまで) We call it “nonfree” or
<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">
“proprietary”</a>.</p>
(削除) <h4 (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 (追記ここまで) id="CloudComputing">“Cloud (削除) Computing”</h4>
<p> (削除ここまで) (追記) Computing”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p id="Cloud"> (追記ここまで)
The term “cloud computing” (追記) (or
just “cloud,” in the context of
computing) (追記ここまで) is a marketing buzzword with no
(削除) clear (削除ここまで) (追記) coherent (追記ここまで) meaning. It is
used for a range of different activities whose only common
characteristic is that they use the Internet for something beyond
transmitting files. Thus, the term (削除) is a nexus of (削除ここまで) (追記) spreads (追記ここまで) confusion. If you base
your thinking on it, your thinking will be (削除) vague. (削除ここまで) (追記) confused (or, could we say,
“cloudy”?). (追記ここまで)
</p>
<p>
When thinking about or responding to a statement someone else has made
using this term, the first step is to clarify the topic. (削除) Which kind
of activity (削除ここまで) (追記) What
scenario (追記ここまで) is the statement (削除) really about, and what (削除ここまで) (追記) about? What (追記ここまで) is a good, clear term for that (削除) activity? (削除ここまで)
(追記) scenario? (追記ここまで) Once the topic is (削除) 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
decided to use the term anyway because, as a proprietary software
developer, he isn't motivated by the same ideals as we are. (削除ここまで) (追記) clearly formulated, coherent thought
about it becomes possible. (追記ここまで)
</p>
<p>
One of the many meanings of “cloud computing” is storing
your data in online services. (削除) That (削除ここまで) (追記) In most scenarios, that is foolish
because it (追記ここまで) exposes you to
<a (削除) href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/25/hackers-spooks-cloud-antiauthoritarian-dream">surveillance</a>. (削除ここまで) (追記) href="https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/25/hackers-spooks-cloud-antiauthoritarian-dream">surveillance</a>. (追記ここまで)
</p>
<p>
Another meaning (which overlaps that but is not the same thing)
is <a href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">
(削除) Software (削除ここまで)
(追記) Service (追記ここまで) as a (削除) Service</a>, (削除ここまで) (追記) Software Substitute</a>, (追記ここまで) which denies you control over
your computing. (追記) You should never use SaaSS. (追記ここまで)
</p>
<p>
Another meaning is renting a remote physical server, or virtual server.
These (削除) can be (削除ここまで) (追記) practices are (追記ここまで) ok under certain circumstances.
</p>
(削除) <h4 id="Commercial">“Commercial”</h4> (削除ここまで)
(追記) <p>
Another meaning is accessing your own server from your own mobile device.
That raises no particular ethical issues.
</p>
<p>
The <a href="https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/145/final">
NIST definition of “cloud computing”</a> mentions three scenarios that
raise different ethical issues: Software as a Service, Platform as a
Service, and Infrastructure as a Service. However, that definition
does not match the common use of “cloud computing,” since
it does not include storing data in online services. Software as a
Service as defined by NIST overlaps considerably with Service as a
Software Substitute, which mistreats the user, but the two concepts
are not equivalent.
</p>
<p>
These different computing practices don't even belong in the same
discussion. The best way to avoid the confusion the term “cloud
computing” spreads is not to use the term “cloud” in
connection with computing. Talk about the scenario you mean, and call
it by a specific term.
</p>
<p>
Curiously, Larry Ellison, a proprietary software developer,
also <a href="https://www.cnet.com/culture/oracles-ellison-nails-cloud-computing/">
noted the vacuity of the term “cloud computing.”</a> He
decided to use the term anyway because, as a proprietary software
developer, he isn't motivated by the same ideals as we are.
</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Commercial">“Commercial”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
Please don't use “commercial” as a synonym for
“nonfree.” That confuses two entirely different
issues.</p>
<p>
A program is commercial if it is developed as a business activity. A
commercial program can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of
distribution. Likewise, a program developed by a school or an
individual can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of
distribution. The two questions—what sort of entity developed
the program and what freedom its users have—are independent.</p>
<p>
In the first decade of the free software movement, free software
packages were almost always noncommercial; the components of the
GNU/Linux operating system were developed by individuals or by
nonprofit organizations such as the FSF and universities. Later, in
the 1990s, free commercial software started to appear.</p>
<p>
Free commercial software is a contribution to our community, so we
should encourage it. But people who think that
“commercial” means “nonfree” will tend to
think that the “free commercial” combination is
self-contradictory, and dismiss the possibility. Let's be careful not
to use the word “commercial” in that way.</p>
(削除) <h4 id="Compensation">“Compensation”</h4> (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Compensation">“Compensation”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
To speak of “compensation for authors” in connection with
copyright carries the assumptions that (1) copyright exists for the
sake of authors and (2) whenever we read something, we take on a debt
to the author which we must then repay. The first assumption is
simply
<a href="/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html">false</a>, and
the second is outrageous.
</p>
<p>
“Compensating the rights-holders” adds a further swindle:
you're supposed to imagine that means paying the authors, and
occasionally it does, but most of the time it means a subsidy for the
same publishing companies that are pushing unjust laws on us.
</p>
(削除) <h4 id="Consume">“Consume”</h4> (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Consume">“Consume”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
“Consume” refers to what we do with food: we ingest it, (削除) and use it in
a way that uses it up. (削除ここまで)
(追記) after which the food as such no longer exists. (追記ここまで) By analogy, we employ
the same word (削除) to describe
using (削除ここまで) (追記) for (追記ここまで) other (削除) things (削除ここまで) (追記) products whose use <em>uses them up</em>.
Applying it to durable goods, such as clothing or appliances, is a
stretch. Applying it to published works (programs, recordings on a
disk or (追記ここまで) in a (削除) way (削除ここまで) (追記) file, books on paper or in a file), whose nature is to
last indefinitely and which can be run, played or read any number of
times, is stretching the word so far that it snaps. Playing a
recording, or running a program, does not consume it.</p>
<p>
Those who use “consume” in this context will say they
don't mean it literally. What, then, does it mean? It means to regard
copies of software and other works from a narrow economistic point of
view. “Consume” is associated with the economics of
material commodities, such as the fuel or electricity (追記ここまで) that (追記) a car (追記ここまで) uses (削除) them (削除ここまで)
up. (削除) However, (削除ここまで) (追記) Gasoline is a commodity, and so is electricity. Commodities
are <em>fungible</em>: there is nothing special about a drop of
gasoline that your car burns today versus another drop that (追記ここまで) it (追記) burned
last week.</p>
<p>What does it mean to think of works of authorship as a commodity,
with the assumption that there is nothing special about any one story,
article, program, or song? That is the twisted viewpoint of the owner
or the accountant of a publishing company, someone who doesn't appreciate
the published works as such.
It is no surprise that proprietary software developers would like
you to think of the use of software as a commodity. Their twisted
viewpoint comes through clearly
in <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/former-google-exec-launches-sourcepoint-with-10-million-series-a-funding-2015-6">this
article</a>, which also refers to publications as
“<a href="#Content">content</a>.”</p>
<p>
The narrow thinking associated with the idea that we “consume
content” paves the way for laws such as the DMCA that forbid
users to break the <a href="https://DefectiveByDesign.org/">Digital
Restrictions Management</a> (DRM) facilities in digital devices. If
users think what they do with these devices is “consume,”
they may see such restrictions as natural.</p>
<p>
It also encourages the acceptance of “streaming” services,
which use DRM to perversely limit listening to music, or watching
video, to squeeze those activities into the assumptions of the word
“consume.”</p>
<p>
Why (追記ここまで) is
(削除) erroneous (削除ここまで) (追記) this perverse usage spreading? Some may feel that the term
sounds sophisticated, but rejecting it with cogent reasons can appear
even more sophisticated. Some want (追記ここまで) to (追記) generalize about all kinds of
media, but the usual English verbs (“read,” “listen
to,” “watch”) don't do this. Others may be acting
from business interests (their own, or their employers'). Their use
of the term in prestigious forums gives the impression that it's the
“correct” term.</p>
<p>
To (追記ここまで) speak of “consuming” (削除) digital information, (削除ここまで) music,
(削除) software, etc., since using (削除ここまで) (追記) fiction, or any other
artistic works is to treat (追記ここまで) them (削除) does not consume them. See (削除ここまで) (追記) as commodities rather than as art. Do
we want to think of published works that way? Do we want to encourage
the public to do so?</p>
<p>Those who answer no, please join me in shunning the term
“consume” for this.</p>
<p>What to use instead? You can use specific verbs such as
“read,” “listen to,” “watch” or
“look at,” since they help to restrain the tendency to
overgeneralize.</p>
<p>If you insist on generalizing, you can use the expression
“attend to,” which requires less of a stretch than
“consume.” For a work meant for practical use,
“use” is best.</p>
<p>See (追記ここまで) also the following entry.</p>
(削除) <h4 id="Consumer">“Consumer”</h4> (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Consumer">“Consumer”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
The term “consumer,” when used to refer to the users of
computing, is loaded with assumptions we should reject. (削除) Playing a digital
recording, or running a program, does not consume it.</p>
<p>
The terms “producer” and “consumer” (削除ここまで) (追記) Some (追記ここまで) come
from
(削除) economic theory, and bring with them its narrow perspective and
misguided assumptions. These tend (削除ここまで) (追記) the idea that using the program “consumes” the program (see
<a href="#Consume">the previous entry</a>), which leads people (追記ここまで) to (削除) warp your thinking.</p> (削除ここまで)
(追記) impose on copiable digital works the economic conclusions that were
drawn about uncopiable material products.</p> (追記ここまで)
<p>
In addition, describing the users of software as
“consumers”
(削除) presumes a narrow role for them: it regards them as sheep that
passively graze on what others make available to them.</p>
<p>
This kind of thinking leads (削除ここまで) (追記) refers (追記ここまで) to (削除) travesties such as the CBDTPA 
(“Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act”) (削除ここまで) (追記) a framing in (追記ここまで) which (削除) proposed (削除ここまで) (追記) people are
limited (追記ここまで) to (削除) require copying restriction facilities (削除ここまで) (追記) selecting between whatever “products” are
available (追記ここまで) in (削除) every digital
device. If all (削除ここまで) the (削除) users do (削除ここまで) (追記) “market.” There (追記ここまで) is (削除) “consume,” then why should
they mind?</p>
<p>
The shallow economic conception of users as “consumers” tends
to go hand (削除ここまで) (追記) no room (追記ここまで) in (削除) hand with (削除ここまで) (追記) this
framing for (追記ここまで) the idea that (削除) published works are mere (削除ここまで) (追記) users
can (追記ここまで) <a (削除) href="#Content">“content.”</a></p> (削除ここまで) (追記) href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">directly
exercise control over what a program does</a>.</p> (追記ここまで)
<p>
To describe people who are not limited to passive use of works, we
suggest terms such as “individuals” and
(削除) “citizens”.</p>
<h4 id="Content">“Content”</h4> (削除ここまで)
(追記) “citizens,” rather than “consumers.”</p>
<p>
This problem with the word “consumer” has
been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/11/capitalism-language-raymond-williams">noted before</a>.</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Content">“Content”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
If you want to describe a feeling of comfort and satisfaction, by all
means say you are “content,” but using the word as a noun
to describe (削除) written and other (削除ここまで) works (削除) of authorship (削除ここまで) (追記) and communications through which people have
expressed themselves (追記ここまで) adopts an attitude you might rather (削除) avoid. It regards these works (削除ここまで) (追記) avoid: it
treats them (追記ここまで) as a commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and make
money. In effect, it disparages (追記) all (追記ここまで) the works (削除) themselves.</p> (削除ここまで) (追記) by subordinating them
to the box that is full. To avoid taking that attitude, you can call
them “works,” “publications,”
“messages,” “communications,” as well as
various other words that are more specific.</p> (追記ここまで)
<p>
Those who use (削除) this (削除ここまで) (追記) the (追記ここまで) term (追記) “content” (追記ここまで) are often the publishers
that push for increased copyright power in the name of the authors
(“creators,” as they say) of the works. The term
“content” reveals their real attitude towards these works
and their (削除) authors.
(See (削除ここまで) (追記) authors.</p>
<p>
The same word, “content,” has another usage which is
different enough in meaning that it does not raise this issue. It
appears in the expression, “technical content.” The usage
of that expression generally relates to <em>one specific document</em>
or publication, and refers to “the information <em>in that
one</em>.” This usage doesn't embody any attitude towards
publications and communications in general.</p>
<p>
Likewise, the word “contents” does not raise this issue.
It is a form of the word “content,” but it has a different
meaning. Talking about the “contents” of a file or the
“table of contents” of a book does not imply an attitude
towards files in general or books in general.</p>
<p>We first condemned this usage of “content” in 2002.
Since then, Tom Chatfield recognized the same point <a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/aug/02/how-to-deal-with-trump-trolls-online">
in <cite>The Guardian</cite></a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>
Content itself is beside the point—as the very use of words like
content suggests. The moment you start labelling every single piece of
writing in the world “content,” you have conceded its
interchangeability: its primary purpose as mere grist to the metrical
mill.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
In other words, “content” reduces publications and
writings to a sort of pap, fit to be metered and piped through the
“tubes” of the internet. </p>
<p>Later, <a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/aug/03/tax-concerns-axed-batgirl-but-studios-will-suffer-if-they-become-too-cynical">
Peter Bradshaw noticed it too.</a></p>
<blockquote><p>
This is what happens when studios treat movies as pure,
undifferentiated corporate “content,” a Gazprom pipeline of superhero
mush which can be turned off when the accountants say that it makes
sense to do so.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
<a href="https://tedgioia.substack.com/p/14-warning-signs-that-you-are-living">
Martin Scorsese condemned the attitude of “content” in
regard to films</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/jun/27/dave-eggers-once-you-have-a-machine-think-and-write-for-you-youre-cooked-as-a-species">Dave
Eggers condemned its use in regard to writing</a>, along with the
practice of delegating one's writing to
so-called <a href="#ArtificialIntelligence">“artificial
intelligence”</a>.</p>
<p>
The attitude implied by “content” is illustrated pointedly
in this critical description of
<a href="https://www.anildash.com/2022/02/09/the-stupid-tech-content-culture-cycle/">
the development path of platforms run by
people who base their thinking on that concept</a>.</p>
<p>
The article uses that word over and over, along with
“consume” and “creators.” One can hope that is
meant to illustrate the folly of that approach—but since that
point isn't stated explicitly, the article could easily backfire by
leading people to imitate its own usage. That reaction does not
require thinking deeply about the article's meaning.</p>
<p>See
also (追記ここまで) <a (削除) href="http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html">Courtney (削除ここまで) (追記) href="https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/">Courtney (追記ここまで)
Love's open letter to Steve Case</a> and search for “content
provider” in that page. Alas, Ms. Love is unaware that the term
“intellectual property” is
also <a href="#IntellectualProperty"> biased and (削除) confusing</a>.)</p> (削除ここまで) (追記) confusing</a>.</p> (追記ここまで)
<p>
However, as long as other people use the term “content
(削除) provider”, (削除ここまで)
(追記) provider,” (追記ここまで) political dissidents can well call themselves
“malcontent (削除) providers”.</p> (削除ここまで) (追記) providers.”</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="ContentManagementSystem">“Content Management System”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
The term “content management” takes the prize for vacuity.
“Content” means “some sort of information,”
and “management” in this context means “doing
something with it.” So a “content management
system” is a system for doing something to some sort of
information. Nearly all programs fit that description.</p>
<p>
In most cases, that term really refers to a system for updating pages
on a web site. For that, we recommend the term “web site
revision system” (追記) or “website revision system” (追記ここまで)
(WRS).</p>
(削除) <h4 id="Creator">“Creator”</h4> (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="CopyrightOwner">“Copyright Owner”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p>
Copyright is an artificial privilege, handed out by the state to
achieve a public interest and lasting a period of time—not a
natural right like owning a house or a shirt. Lawyers used to
recognize this by referring to the recipient of that privilege as a
“copyright holder.”</p>
<p>A few decades ago, copyright holders began trying to reduce
awareness of this point. In addition to citing frequently the bogus
concept of <a href="#IntellectualProperty">“intellectual
property,”</a> they also started calling themselves
“copyright owners.” Please join us in resisting by using
the traditional term “copyright holders” instead.</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="CreativeCommonsLicensed">“Creative Commons licensed”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p>
The most important licensing characteristic of a work is whether it is
free. Creative Commons publishes seven licenses; three are free
(CC BY, CC BY-SA and CC0) and the rest are nonfree. Thus, to
describe a work as “Creative Commons licensed” fails to
say whether it is free, and suggests that the question is not
important. The statement may be accurate, but the omission is
harmful.
</p>
<p>
To encourage people to pay attention to the most important
distinction, always specify <em>which</em> Creative Commons license is
used, as in “licensed under CC BY-SA.” If you don't know
which license a certain work carries, find out and then make your
statement.
</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Creator">“Creator”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
The term “creator” as applied to authors implicitly
compares them to a deity (“the creator”). The term is
used by publishers to elevate authors' moral standing above that of
ordinary people in order to justify giving them increased copyright
power, which the publishers can then exercise in their name. We
recommend saying “author” instead. However, in many cases
“copyright holder” is what you really mean. These two
terms are not equivalent: often the copyright holder is not the
author.</p>
(削除) <h4 (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 (追記ここまで) id="DigitalGoods">“Digital (削除) Goods”</h4> (削除ここまで) (追記) Goods”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
The term “digital goods,” as applied to copies of works of
authorship, identifies them with physical goods—which cannot be
copied, and which therefore have to be manufactured in quantity and
sold. This metaphor encourages people to judge issues about software
or other digital works based on their views and intuitions about
physical goods. It also frames issues in terms of economics, whose
shallow and limited values don't include freedom and community.</p>
(削除) <h4 (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 (追記ここまで) id="DigitalLocks">“Digital (削除) Locks”</h4> (削除ここまで) (追記) Locks”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
“Digital locks” is used to refer to Digital Restrictions
Management by some who criticize it. The problem with this term is
that it fails to (削除) show what's wrong with (削除ここまで) (追記) do justice to (追記ここまで) the (削除) practice.</p> (削除ここまで) (追記) badness of DRM. The people who
adopted that term did not think it through.</p> (追記ここまで)
<p>
Locks are not necessarily (削除) an injustice. (削除ここまで) (追記) oppressive or bad. (追記ここまで) You probably own several
locks, and their keys or codes as well; you may find them useful or
troublesome, but (削除) either way (削除ここまで) they don't oppress you, because you can open and
close (削除) them.</p> (削除ここまで) (追記) them. Likewise, we
find <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/01/encryption-wont-work-if-it-has-a-back-door-only-the-good-guys-have-keys-to-">encryption</a>
invaluable for protecting our digital files. That too is a kind
of digital lock that you have control over.</p> (追記ここまで)
<p>
DRM is like a lock placed on you by someone else, who refuses to give
you the key—in other words, like (削除) handcuffs. (削除ここまで) (追記) <em>handcuffs</em>. (追記ここまで) Therefore,
(削除) we call them (削除ここまで)
(追記) the proper metaphor for DRM is (追記ここまで) “digital (削除) handcuffs”, (削除ここまで) (追記) handcuffs,” (追記ここまで) not
“digital
(削除) locks”.</p> (削除ここまで) (追記) locks.”</p> (追記ここまで)
<p>
A number of opposition campaigns have chosen the unwise term
“digital locks”; to get things back on the right track, we
must firmly (削除) decline to follow them in using that term. We (削除ここまで) (追記) insist on correcting this mistake. The FSF (追記ここまで) can support a
campaign that opposes “digital locks” if we agree on the
substance; however, when we state our support, we conspicuously
replace the term with “digital handcuffs” and say why.</p>
(削除) <h4 (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 (追記ここまで) id="DigitalRightsManagement">“Digital Rights (削除) Management”</h4> (削除ここまで) (追記) Management”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
“Digital Rights Management” (追記) (abbreviated
“DRM”) (追記ここまで) refers to technical (削除) schemes (削除ここまで) (追記) mechanisms (追記ここまで) designed to impose
restrictions on computer users. The use of the word
“rights” in this term is propaganda, designed to lead you
unawares into seeing the issue from the viewpoint of the few that
impose the restrictions, and ignoring that of the general public on
whom these restrictions are imposed.</p>
<p>
Good alternatives include “Digital Restrictions
Management,” and “digital handcuffs.”</p>
(削除) <h4 id="Ecosystem">“Ecosystem”</h4> (削除ここまで)
(追記) <p>
Please sign up to support our <a href="https://DefectiveByDesign.org/">
campaign to abolish DRM</a>.</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Ecosystem">“Ecosystem”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
It is inadvisable to describe the free software community, or any human
community, as an “ecosystem,” because that word implies
the absence of ethical judgment.</p>
<p>
The term “ecosystem” implicitly suggests an attitude of
nonjudgmental observation: don't ask how what <em>should</em> happen,
just study and understand what <em>does</em> happen. In an ecosystem,
some organisms consume other organisms. In ecology, we do not ask
whether it is right for an owl to eat a mouse or for a mouse to eat a
seed, we only observe that they do so. Species' populations grow or
shrink according to the conditions; this is neither right nor wrong,
merely an ecological phenomenon, even if it goes so far as the
extinction of a species.</p>
<p>
By contrast, beings that adopt an ethical stance towards their
surroundings can decide to preserve things that, without their
intervention, might vanish—such as civil society, democracy,
human rights, peace, public health, a stable climate, clean air and
water, endangered species, traditional arts…and computer users'
freedom.
</p>
(削除) <h4 (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="FLOSS">“FLOSS”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p>
The term “FLOSS,” meaning “Free/Libre and Open
Source Software,” was coined as a way
to <a href="/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html">be neutral between free
software and open source</a>. If neutrality is your goal,
“FLOSS” is the best way to be neutral. But if you want to
show you stand for freedom, don't use a neutral term.</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 (追記ここまで) id="ForFree">“For (削除) free”</h4> (削除ここまで) (追記) free”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<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>
(削除) <h4 (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="FOSS">“FOSS”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p>
The term “FOSS,” meaning “Free and Open Source
Software,” was coined as a way
to <a href="/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html">be neutral between free
software and open source</a>, but it doesn't really do that. If
neutrality is your goal, “FLOSS” is better. But if you
want to show you stand for freedom, don't use a neutral term.</p>
<blockquote><p>Instead of <b>FOSS</b>,
we say, <b>free software</b> or <b>free (libre) software</b>.</p>
</blockquote>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 (追記ここまで) id="FreelyAvailable">“Freely (削除) available”</h4> (削除ここまで) (追記) available”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
Don't use “freely available software” as a synonym for “free
software.” The terms are not equivalent. Software is “freely
available” if anyone can easily get a copy. “Free
software” is defined in terms of the freedom of users that have
a copy of it. These are answers to different questions.
</p>
(削除) <h4 id="Freeware">“Freeware”</h4> (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Freemium">“Freemium”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p>
The confusing term “freemium” is used in marketing to
describe <em>nonfree</em> software whose standard version is gratis,
with paid <em>nonfree</em> add-ons available.</p>
<p>
Using this term works against the free software movement, because it
leads people to think of “free” as meaning “zero
price.”</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="FreeToPlay">“Free-to-play”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p>
The confusing term “free-to-play” (acronym
“F2P”) is used in marketing to describe <em>nonfree</em>
games which don't require a payment before a user starts to play. In
many of these games, doing well in the game requires paying later, so
the term “gratis-to-start” is a more accurate
description.</p>
<p>
Using this term works against the free software movement, because it
leads people to think of “free” as meaning
“zero price.”</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Freeware">“Freeware”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
Please don't use the term “freeware” as a synonym for
“free software.” The term “freeware” was used
often in the 1980s for programs released only as executables, with
source code not available. Today it has no particular agreed-on
definition.</p>
<p>
When using languages other than English, please avoid
borrowing English terms such as “free software” or
“freeware.” It is better to translate the term “free
software” into
<a href="/philosophy/fs-translations.html">your language</a>.</p>
<p>
By using a word in <a href="/philosophy/fs-translations.html">your
own language</a>, you show that you are really referring to freedom
and not just parroting some mysterious foreign marketing concept.
The reference to freedom may at first seem strange or disturbing
to your compatriots, but once they see that it means exactly what
it says, they will really understand what the issue is.
</p>
 
(削除) <h4 (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 (追記ここまで) id="GiveAwaySoftware">“Give away (削除) software”</h4> (削除ここまで) (追記) software”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
It's misleading to use the term “give away” to mean
“distribute a program as free software.”
This locution has the same
problem as “for free”: it implies the issue is price, not
freedom. One way to avoid the confusion is to say “release as
free software.”</p>
(削除) <h4 id="Hacker">“Hacker”</h4> (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Google">“Google”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p>
Please avoid using the term “google” as a verb, meaning to
search for something on the internet. “Google” is just the
name of one particular search engine among others. We suggest to use
the term “search the web” or (in some contexts) just
“search.” Try to use a search engine that respects your
privacy; for instance, <a href="https://duckduckgo.com/">DuckDuckGo</a>
claims not to track its users. (There is no way for outsiders to
verify claims of that kind.)</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Hacker">“Hacker”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
A hacker is someone
who <a (削除) href="http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html"> (削除ここまで) (追記) href="https://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html"> (追記ここまで) 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>
(削除) <h4 (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 (追記ここまで) id="IntellectualProperty">“Intellectual (削除) property”</h4> (削除ここまで) (追記) property”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as
“intellectual property”—a term also applied to
patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws
have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised
to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about
“copyright,” or about “patents,” or about
“trademarks.”</p>
<p>
The term “intellectual property” carries a hidden
assumption—that the way to think about all these disparate
issues is based on an analogy with physical objects,
and our conception of them as physical property.</p>
<p>
When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial
difference between material objects and information: information can
be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't
be.</p>
<p>
To avoid spreading unnecessary bias and confusion, it is best to adopt
a firm policy <a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html"> not to speak or even
think in terms of “intellectual property”</a>.</p>
<p>
The hypocrisy of calling these powers “rights” is
<a href="/philosophy/wipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html">
starting to make the World “Intellectual Property”
Organization embarrassed</a>.</p>
(削除) <h4 (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="InternetofThings">“Internet of Things”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p>
When companies decided to make computerized appliances that would
connect over the internet to the manufacturer's server, and therefore
could easily snoop on their users, they realized that this would not
sound very nice. So they came up with a cute, appealing name: the
“Internet of Things.”</p>
<p>
Experience shows that these products often do 
<a
href="https://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2015/09/cory-doctorow-what-if-people-were-sensors-not-things-to-be-sensed/">
spy on their users</a>. They are also tailor-made for 
<a href="https://archive.ieet.org/articles/rinesi20150806.html">giving
people biased advice</a>. In addition, the manufacturer can <a
href="/proprietary/proprietary-sabotage.html"> sabotage the
product</a> by turning off the server it depends on.</p>
<p>
We call them the “Internet of Stings.”
</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 (追記ここまで) id="LAMP">“LAMP (削除) system”</h4> (削除ここまで) (追記) system”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
“LAMP” stands for “Linux, Apache, MySQL and
PHP”—a common combination of software to use on a web
server, except that “Linux” in this context really refers
to the GNU/Linux system. So instead of “LAMP” it should
be “GLAMP”: “GNU, Linux, Apache, MySQL and
PHP.”
</p>
(削除) <h4 (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 (追記ここまで) id="Linux">“Linux (削除) system”</h4> (削除ここまで) (追記) system”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
Linux is the name of the kernel that Linus Torvalds developed starting
in 1991. The operating system in which Linux is used is basically GNU
with Linux added. To call the whole system “Linux” is
both unfair and confusing. Please call the complete
system <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html"> GNU/Linux</a>, both to give
the GNU Project credit and to distinguish the whole system from the
kernel alone.
</p>
(削除) <h4 id="Market">“Market”</h4> (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Market">“Market”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the
software users in general, as a “market.”</p>
<p>
This is not to say there is no room for markets in the free software community.
If you have a free software
support business, then you have clients, and you trade with them in a
market. As long as you respect their freedom, we wish you success in
your market.</p>
<p>
But the free software movement is a social movement, not a business,
and the success it aims for is not a market success. We are trying to
serve the public by giving it freedom—not competing to draw business
away from a rival. To equate this campaign for freedom to a (削除) business' (削除ここまで) (追記) business's (追記ここまで)
efforts for mere success is to deny the importance of freedom
and legitimize proprietary software.</p>
(削除) <h4 id="Monetize">“Monetize”</h4> (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Modern">“Modern”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
The (削除) natural meaning of “monetize” is “convert into
money”. If you make something (削除ここまで) (追記) term “modern” makes sense from a descriptive
perspective—for instance, solely to distinguish newer periods (追記ここまで)
and (削除) then convert (削除ここまで) (追記) ways from older ones.</p>
<p>It becomes a problem when (追記ここまで) it (削除) into money, (削除ここまで) (追記) carries the presumption (追記ここまで) that (削除) means there (削除ここまで) (追記) older
ways are “old-fashioned”; that is, presumed to be worse. In
technological fields where businesses make the choices and impose
them on users, the reverse (追記ここまで) is (削除) nothing left except money, so nobody but you has
gained anything, (削除ここまで) (追記) often true.</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Monetize">“Monetize”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p>
The proper definition of “monetize” is “to use
something as currency.” For instance, human societies have
monetized gold, silver, copper, printed paper, special kinds of
seashells, (追記ここまで) and (削除) you contribute nothing (削除ここまで) (追記) large rocks. However, we now see a tendency (追記ここまで) to (追記) use (追記ここまで) the (削除) world.</p> (削除ここまで)
(追記) word in another way, meaning “to use something as a basis for
profit.”</p> (追記ここまで)
<p>
(削除) By contrast, (削除ここまで)
(追記) That usage casts the profit as primary, and the thing used to get the
profit as secondary. That attitude applied to (追記ここまで) a (追記) software project is
objectionable because it would lead the developers to make the program
proprietary, if they conclude that making it free/libre isn't
sufficiently profitable.</p>
<p>
A (追記ここまで) productive and ethical business (削除) does not convert (削除ここまで) (追記) can make money, but if it
subordinates (追記ここまで) all (削除) of
its product into money. Part of (削除ここまで) (追記) else to profit, (追記ここまで) it is (削除) a contribution (削除ここまで) (追記) not likely (追記ここまで) to (削除) the rest of
the world.</p>
<h4 (削除ここまで) (追記) remain
ethical.</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 (追記ここまで) id="MP3Player">“MP3 (削除) Player”</h4> (削除ここまで) (追記) Player”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
(追記) <!-- The MP3 patents will reportedly expire by 2018. --> (追記ここまで)
In the late 1990s it became feasible to make portable, solid-state
digital audio players. Most (削除) support (削除ここまで) (追記) players supported (追記ここまで) the patented MP3 codec, (削除) but not
all. (削除ここまで)
(追記) and that is still the case. (追記ここまで) Some (削除) support (削除ここまで) (追記) players also supported (追記ここまで) the
patent-free audio codecs Ogg Vorbis and FLAC, and (削除) may not even support (削除ここまで) (追記) a few couldn't play (追記ここまで)
MP3-encoded files at (削除) all, precisely (削除ここまで) (追記) all because their developers needed (追記ここまで) to (削除) avoid
these patents. To call such players (削除ここまで) (追記) protect
themselves from the patents on MP3 format.</p>
<p>Using the term (追記ここまで) “MP3 players” (削除) is not
only confusing, it also puts MP3 (削除ここまで) (追記) for audio players (追記ここまで) in (削除) an undeserved position (削除ここまで)
(追記) general has the effect of promoting the MP3 format and discouraging
the other formats (some (追記ここまで) of
(削除) privilege (削除ここまで) which (削除) encourages people (削除ここまで) (追記) are technically superior as well).
Even though the MP3 patents have expired, it is still undesirable (追記ここまで) to (削除) continue using that vulnerable format.
We (削除ここまで)
(追記) do that.</p>
<p>We (追記ここまで) suggest the (削除) terms (削除ここまで) (追記) term (追記ここまで) “digital audio player,” or simply
“audio player” (削除) if context permits.</p>
<h4 id="Open">“Open”</h4> (削除ここまで) (追記) when that's clear enough, instead of
“MP3 player.”</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Open">“Open”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
Please avoid using the term “open” or “open
source” as a substitute for “free (削除) software”. (削除ここまで) (追記) software.” (追記ここまで) Those terms
refer to a <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">
different (削除) position</a> (削除ここまで) (追記) set of views</a> (追記ここまで) based on different values. (削除) Free (削除ここまで) (追記) The free (追記ここまで) software (削除) is (削除ここまで)
(追記) movement campaigns for your freedom in your computing, as (追記ここまで) a (削除) political movement; (削除ここまで) (追記) matter
of justice. The (追記ここまで) open source (削除) is a development model.
When (削除ここまで) (追記) non-movement does not campaign for anything
in this way.</p>
<p>When (追記ここまで) referring to the open source (削除) position, using its name is
appropriate; (削除ここまで) (追記) views, it's correct to use that
name, (追記ここまで) but please do not use (削除) it to label us (削除ここまで) (追記) that term when talking about us, our
software, (追記ここまで) or our (削除) work—that (削除ここまで) (追記) views—that (追記ここまで) leads people to (削除) think (削除ここまで) (追記) suppose our views
are similar to theirs.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Instead of <b>open source</b>, (追記ここまで)
we (削除) share those views.</p>
<h4 id="PC">“PC”</h4> (削除ここまで) (追記) say, <b>free software</b> or <b>free (libre) software</b>.</p>
</blockquote>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="OptOut">“Opt out”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p>
When applied to any form of computational mistreatment, “opt
out” implies the choice is a minor matter of convenience. We
recommend “reject,” “shun” or “escape
from.”</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="PC">“PC”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
It's OK to use the abbreviation “PC” to refer to a certain
kind of computer hardware, but please don't use it with the
implication that the computer is running Microsoft Windows. If you
install GNU/Linux on the same computer, it is still a PC.</p>
<p>
The term “WC” has been suggested for a computer running
Windows.</p>
(削除) <h4 id="Photoshop">“Photoshop”</h4> (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Photoshop">“Photoshop”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
Please avoid using the term “photoshop” as a verb, meaning
any kind of photo manipulation or image editing in general. Photoshop
is just the name of one particular image editing program, which should
be avoided since it is proprietary. There are plenty of free programs
for editing images, such as the <a (削除) href="/software/gimp">GIMP</a>.</p>
<h4 id="Piracy">“Piracy”</h4> (削除ここまで) (追記) href="https://www.gimp.org/">GIMP</a>.</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Players">“Players” (said of businesses)</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p>
To describe businesses as “players” presumes that they are
motivated purely and simply by “winning” what they treat
as a poker-like game—in effect, subordinating all else to
profit. Often businesses (and their executives) do act that way, but
not always, and we often pressure them to respect other values as
well.</p>
<p>
The moral cynicism of “players” resonates with a general
condemnation of business, which to some extent business in general
deserves; at the same time, it tends to dissuade the attempt to judge
any business's acts or practices in moral terms. Even to raise the
question of whether a certain business treats people unjustly is
dissuaded by the “players” metaphor's murmuring, in the
background, “Why bother asking?” let's avoid that
metaphor.</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Piracy">“Piracy”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as
“piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically
equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and
murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have
procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or
sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make
these prohibitions more complete.)
</p>
<p>
If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is
just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word
“piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as
“unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited
copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available
for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term
such as “sharing information with your neighbor.”</p>
(削除) <h4 id="PowerPoint">“PowerPoint”</h4> (削除ここまで)
(追記) <p>
A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement,
recognized that
<a href="https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129/">“piracy”
and “theft” are smear words</a>.</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="PowerPoint">“PowerPoint”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
Please avoid using the term “PowerPoint” to mean any kind
of slide presentation. “PowerPoint” is just the name of
one particular proprietary program to make (削除) presentations, and there
are plenty of (削除ここまで) (追記) presentations. For your
freedom's sake, you should use only (追記ここまで) free (削除) program for presentations, such as TeX's <tt>beamer</tt> (削除ここまで) (追記) software to make your
presentations—which means, <em>not PowerPoint</em>. Recommended
options include LaTeX's <code>beamer</code> (追記ここまで) class and (削除) OpenOffice.org's (削除ここまで) (追記) LibreOffice (追記ここまで)
Impress.</p>
(削除) <h4 id="Protection">“Protection”</h4> (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Product">“Product”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p>
If you're talking about a product, by all means call it that.
However, when referring to a service, please do not call it a
“product.” If a service provider calls the service a
“product,” please firmly insist on calling it a
“service.” If a service provider calls a package deal a
“product,” please firmly insist on calling it a
“deal.”
</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Protection">“Protection”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
Publishers' lawyers love to use the term “protection” to
describe copyright. This word carries the implication of preventing
destruction or suffering; therefore, it encourages people to identify
with the owner and publisher who benefit from copyright, rather than
with the users who are restricted by it.</p>
<p>
It is easy to avoid “protection” and use neutral terms
instead. For example, instead of saying, “Copyright protection lasts a
very long time,” you can say, “Copyright lasts a very long
time.”</p>
<p>
Likewise, instead of saying, “protected by copyright,” you
can say, “covered by copyright” or just
“copyrighted.”</p>
<p>
If you want to criticize copyright rather than be neutral, you can
use the term “copyright restrictions.” Thus, you can say,
“Copyright restrictions last a very long time.”</p>
<p>
The term “protection” is also used to describe malicious
features. For instance, “copy protection” is a feature
that interferes with copying. From the user's point of view, this is
obstruction. So we could call that malicious feature “copy
obstruction.” More often it is called Digital Restrictions
Management (DRM)—see the
<a (削除) href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org"> (削除ここまで) (追記) href="https://DefectiveByDesign.org"> (追記ここまで) Defective by Design</a>
campaign.</p>
(削除) <h4 (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 (追記ここまで) id="RAND">“RAND (Reasonable and (削除) Non-Discriminatory)”</h4> (削除ここまで) (追記) Non-Discriminatory)”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
Standards bodies that promulgate patent-restricted standards that
prohibit free software typically have a policy of obtaining patent
licenses that require a fixed fee per copy of a conforming program.
They often refer to such licenses by the term “RAND,”
which stands for “reasonable and non-discriminatory.”</p>
<p>
That term whitewashes a class of patent licenses that are normally
neither reasonable nor nondiscriminatory. It is true that these
licenses do not discriminate against any specific person, but they do
discriminate against the free software community, and that makes them
unreasonable. Thus, half of the term “RAND” is deceptive
and the other half is prejudiced.</p>
<p>
Standards bodies should recognize that these licenses are
discriminatory, and drop the use of the term “reasonable and
non-discriminatory” or “RAND” to describe them.
Until they do so, writers who do not wish to join in the
whitewashing would do well to reject that term. To accept and use it
merely because patent-wielding companies have made it widespread is to
let those companies dictate the views you express.</p>
<p>
We suggest the term “uniform fee only,” or
“UFO” for short, as a replacement. It is accurate because
the only condition in these licenses is a uniform royalty fee.</p>
(削除) <h4 (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="SaaS">“SaaS” or “Software as a Service”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p>
We used to say that SaaS (short for “Software as a
Service”) is an injustice, but then we found that there was a
lot of variation in people's understanding of which activities count
as SaaS. So we switched to a new term, “Service as a Software
Substitute” or “SaaSS.” This term has two
advantages: it wasn't used before, so our definition is the only one,
and it explains what the injustice consists of.</p>
<p>
See <a href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">Who
Does That Server Really Serve?</a> for discussion of this
issue.</p>
<p>
In Spanish we continue to use the term “software como
servicio” because the joke of “software como ser
vicio” (“software, as being pernicious”) is too good
to give up.</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 (追記ここまで) id="SellSoftware">“Sell (削除) software”</h4> (削除ここまで) (追記) software”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
The term “sell software” is ambiguous. Strictly speaking,
exchanging a copy of a free program for a sum of money
is
(削除) selling; but (削除ここまで) (追記) <a href="/philosophy/selling.html"> selling the program</a>, and
there is nothing wrong with doing that. However, (追記ここまで) people usually
associate the term
(削除) “sell” (削除ここまで) (追記) “selling software” (追記ここまで) with proprietary
restrictions on the subsequent use of the software. You can be (削除) more precise, (削除ここまで) (追記) clear, (追記ここまで)
and prevent confusion, by saying either “distributing copies of
a program for a fee” or “imposing proprietary restrictions
on the use of a
(削除) program,” depending on what you mean.</p> (削除ここまで) (追記) program.”</p> (追記ここまで)
<p>
See <a href="/philosophy/selling.html">Selling Free Software</a> for
further discussion of this issue.</p>
(削除) <h4 (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="SharingPersonalData">“Sharing (personal data)”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p>
When companies manipulate or lure people into revealing personal data
and thus ceding their privacy, please don't refer to this as
“sharing.” We use the term “sharing” to refer
to noncommercial cooperation, including noncommercial redistribution
of exact copies of published works, and we say this is <em>good</em>.
Please don't apply that word to a practice which is harmful and dangerous.</p>
<p>When one company redistributes collected personal data to another company,
that is even less deserving of the term “sharing.”</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="SharingEconomy">“Sharing economy”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p>
The term “sharing economy” is not a good way to refer to
services such as Uber and Airbnb that arrange business transactions
between people. We use the term “sharing” to refer to
noncommercial cooperation, including noncommercial redistribution of
exact copies of published works. Stretching the word
“sharing” to include these transactions undermines its
meaning, so we don't use it in this context.</p>
<p>
A more suitable term for businesses like Uber is the
“piecework service economy” or “gig economy.”</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Skype">“Skype”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p>
Please avoid using the term “skype” as a verb, meaning any
kind of video communication or telephony over the Internet in general.
“Skype” is just the name of one particular proprietary
program, one that <a
href="/philosophy/proprietary/proprietary-surveillance.html#SpywareInSkype">
spies on its users</a>. If you want to make video and voice calls over the
Internet in a way that respects both your freedom and your privacy, try
one of the <a href="https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:Skype_Replacement">
numerous free Skype replacements</a>.</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="SmartSpeaker">“Smart speaker”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p>
This term is totally absurd. It refers to products that listen
and understand voice commands; they also have a speaker for speaking
output from those commands. Their primary function is to listen
to commands. Let's call them “voice command listeners.”</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 (追記ここまで) id="SoftwareIndustry">“Software (削除) Industry”</h4> (削除ここまで) (追記) Industry”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
The term “software industry” encourages people to imagine
that software is always developed by a sort of factory and then
delivered to “consumers.” The free software community
shows this is not the case. Software businesses exist, and various
businesses develop free and/or nonfree software, but those that
develop free software are not run like factories.</p>
<p>
The term “industry” is being used as propaganda by
advocates of software patents. They call software development
“industry” and then try to argue that this means it should
be subject to patent monopolies. <a (削除) href="http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/"> The (削除ここまで)
(追記) href="https://web.archive.org/web/20071215073111/http://eupat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/"
title="archived version of http://eupat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/">The (追記ここまで)
European Parliament, rejecting software patents in 2003, voted to
define “industry” as “automated production of
material goods.”</a></p>
(削除) <h4 id="Theft">“Theft”</h4> (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="SourceModel">“Source model”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
(削除) Copyright apologists (削除ここまで)
(追記) Wikipedia uses the term “source model” in a confused and
ambiguous way. Ostensibly it refers to how a program's source is
distributed, but the text confuses this with the development
methodology. It distinguishes “open source” and
”shared source” as answers, but they overlap—Microsoft
uses the latter as a marketing term to cover a range of
practices, some of which are “open source.” Thus, this
term really conveys no coherent information, but it provides an
opportunity to say “open source” in pages describing free
software programs.</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Steward">“Steward”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p>
We urge you to completely avoid use of the word “steward”
in association with any free program or with free software in general.
A European Union Directive has given the word a precise legal meaning
which implies certain legal responsibilities. Let's not risk imposing
responsibilities on free software developers by casually calling
people “stewards.”</p>
<p>
However, if your lawyer has given you specific legal advice about
this, we encourage you to follow it.</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!--#if expr="$LANGUAGE_SUFFIX	= /^.(es)\$/" -->
<!-- TRANSLATORS: translate if this word is used often in your
 language to refer to mobile computers; otherwise,
 fill the translation with a space. -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Terminal">“Terminal”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p>Mobile phones and tablets are computers, and people should be
able to do their computing on them using free software.
To call them “terminals” supposes that all they are good for
is to connect to servers, which is a bad way to do your own computing.</p>
<!--#endif -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Theft">“Theft”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p>
The supporters of a too-strict, repressive form of copyright (追記ここまで) often use
words like “stolen” and “theft” to refer to
copyright infringement. This is spin, but they would like you to take
it for objective truth.</p>
<p>
Under the US legal system, copyright infringement is not theft. 
(追記) <a
href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/473/207.html"> (追記ここまで)
Laws about theft are not applicable to copyright (削除) infringement. (削除ここまで) (追記) infringement</a>. (追記ここまで)
The (追記) supporters of repressive (追記ここまで) copyright (削除) apologists (削除ここまで) are making an appeal to
authority—and misrepresenting what authority says.</p>
<p>
(追記) To refute them, you can point to this
<a href="https://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/04/harper-lee-kill-mockingbird-copyright">
real case</a> which shows what can properly be described as
“copyright theft.”</p>
<p> (追記ここまで)
Unauthorized copying is forbidden by copyright law in many
circumstances (not all!), but being forbidden doesn't make it wrong.
In general, laws don't define right and wrong. Laws, at their best,
attempt to implement justice. If the laws (the implementation) don't
fit our ideas of right and wrong (the spec), the laws are what should
change.</p>
(削除) <h4 (削除ここまで)
(追記) <p>
A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement,
recognized that
<a href="https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129/">“piracy”
and “theft” are smear-words</a>.</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Tool">“Tool”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY -->
<p>
If someone invites you to use a “tool”, watch out!</p>
<p>
We used to use the word “tool” to refer to programs that
programmers use in software development—such as the GNU Compiler
Collection. No problem with that meaning.</p>
<p>
Nowadays we see people using the word “tool” to lump
together programs and remote services, treating that difference as
insignificant. Morally, that distinction is crucial: a program that
you can install to do your computing can respect your freedom (if it
is free software), but a
service <a href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">to
do some of <em>your</em> computing while running on someone else's
server</a> cannot possibly respect your freedom.</p>
<p>
Please avoid using the word “tool” with this vague
meaning. When you're talking about a program, always call it a
“program” if it is a program released for users to
run. (If it is not free/libre, it is usually better not to mention
it at all.)</p>
<p>
On the other hand, if it is a service and what it does is the user's
own computing, that's worse than a nonfree program, so best not to
promote it at all.</p>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 (追記ここまで) id="TrustedComputing">“Trusted (削除) Computing”</h4> (削除ここまで) (追記) Computing”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
<a href="/philosophy/can-you-trust.html">“Trusted computing”</a> is
the proponents' name for a scheme to redesign computers so that
application developers can trust your computer to obey them instead of
you. From their point of view, it is “trusted”; from your
point of view, it is “treacherous.”
</p>
(削除) <h4 id="Vendor">“Vendor”</h4> (削除ここまで)
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM -->
<!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY -->
<h3 id="Vendor">“Vendor”</h3>
<!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --> (追記ここまで)
<p>
Please don't use the term “vendor” to refer generally to
anyone that develops or packages software. Many programs
are developed in order to sell copies, and their developers are
therefore their vendors; this even includes some free software packages.
However, many programs are developed by volunteers or organizations
which do not intend to sell copies. These developers are not vendors.
Likewise, only some of the packagers of GNU/Linux distributions are
vendors. We recommend the general term “supplier” instead.
</p>
(追記) <!-- GNUN-SORT-STOP --> (追記ここまで)
<div (削除) class="announcement">
Also note (削除ここまで) (追記) class="column-limit"></div>
<h4 class="footnote">Bibliography</h4>
<ol>
<li id="ft1">Hicks, M.T., Humphries, J. & Slater, J. ChatGPT is bullshit.
<em>Ethics Inf Technol</em> <b>26</b>, 38 (2024). (追記ここまで)
<a (削除) href="/philosophy/categories.html">Categories
of Free and Nonfree Software</a>.</div> (削除ここまで) (追記) href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5">link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5</a></li>
</ol> (追記ここまで)
<hr (追記) class="no-display" (追記ここまで) />
(削除) <h4>This (削除ここまで)
(追記) <div class="edu-note c"><p id="fsfs">This (追記ここまで) essay is published in
<a (削除) href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free (削除ここまで) (追記) href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free (追記ここまで)
Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
M. (削除) Stallman</cite></a>.</h4> (削除ここまで) (追記) Stallman</cite></a>.</p></div>
</div> (追記ここまで)
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<div (削除) id="footer"> (削除ここまで) (追記) id="footer" role="contentinfo">
<div class="unprintable"> (追記ここまで)
<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>.
There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p>
<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
 replace it with the translation of these two:
 We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
 translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
 Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
 to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
 <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
 <p>For information on coordinating and (削除) submitting (削除ここまで) (追記) contributing (追記ここまで) translations of
 our web pages, see <a
 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
 README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a> for information on coordinating and (削除) submitting (削除ここまで) (追記) contributing (追記ここまで) translations
of this article.</p>
(削除) <p>
Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, (削除ここまで)
(追記) </div>
<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
 files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
 be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
 without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
 Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
 document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
 document was modified, or published.
 If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
 Either "2001, (追記ここまで) 2002, (削除) 2003, 2004, 2007,
2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 (削除ここまで) (追記) 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
 years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
 year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
 being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
 There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
 Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
<p>Copyright © 1996-2018, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026 (追記ここまで) Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
(削除) href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative (削除ここまで)
(追記) href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative (追記ここまで)
Commons (削除) Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.
</p> (削除ここまで) (追記) Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> (追記ここまで)
<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
(削除) <p>Updated: (削除ここまで)
(追記) <p class="unprintable">Updated: (追記ここまで)
<!-- timestamp start -->
$Date: 2026年07月24日 19:03:33 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
(削除) </div> (削除ここまで)
(追記) </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> (追記ここまで)
</body>
</html>