Words to Avoid
**************

unnumberedfootnote

     Originally written in 1996, this version is part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 2002, GNU Press (http://www.gnupress.org); ISBN 1-882114-98-1.

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved

There are a number of words and phrases that we recommend avoiding, either because they are ambiguous or because they imply an opinion that we hope you may not entirely agree with.

BSD-style
     The expression ``BSD-style license'' leads to confusion because it lumps together licenses that have important differences. For instance, the original BSD license with the advertising clause is incompatible with the GPL, but the revised BSD license is compatible with the GPL.

     To avoid confusion, it is best to name the specific license in question and avoid the vague term ``BSD-style.''

Commercial
     Please don't use ``commercial'' as a synonym for ``non-free.'' That confuses two entirely different issues.

     A program is commercial if it is developed as a business activity. A commercial program can be free or non-free, depending on its license. Likewise, a program developed by a school or an individual can be free or non-free, depending on its license. The two questions, what sort of entity developed the program and what freedom its users have, are independent.

     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 Free Software Foundation and universities. But in the 1990's, free commercial software started to appear.

     Free commercial software is a contribution to our community, so we should encourage it. But people who think that ``commercial'' means ``non-free'' will tend to think that combination is self-contradictory, and dismiss the possibility. Let's be careful not to use the word ``commercial'' in that way.

Content
     If you want to describe a feeling of comfort and satisfaction, by all means say ``content,'' but using it to describe written and other works of authorship embodies a specific attitude towards those works: that they are an interchangeable commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and make money. In effect, it treats the works themselves with disrespect.

     Those who use this term are often the publishers that push for increased copyright power in the name of the authors (``creators,'' as they say) of the works. The term ``content'' reveals what they really feel.

     As long as other people use the term ``content provider,'' political dissidents can well call themselves ``malcontent providers.''

Creator
     The term ``creator'' as applied to authors implicitly compares them to a deity (``the creator''). The term is used by publishers to elevate the authors' moral stature above that of ordinary people, to justify increased copyright power that the publishers can exercise in the name of the authors.

Digital Rights Management
     ``Digital Rights Management'' software is actually 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, while ignoring that of the many whom the restrictions are imposed on.

     Good alternatives include ``Digital Restrictions Management'' and ``handcuffware.''

For free
     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.

     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.

     To avoid confusion, you can say that the program is available ``as free software.''

Freeware
     Please don't use the term ``freeware'' as a synonym for ``free software.'' The term ``freeware'' was used often in the 1980's for programs released only as executables, with source code not available. Today it has no particular agreed-on definition.

     Also, if you use languages other than English, please try to avoid borrowing English words such as ``free software'' or ``freeware.'' Try to use the often less ambiguous wording that your language offers. This is a list of recommended unambiguous translations for the term ``free software'' into various languages.

       * Czech: svobodny software

       * Danish: fri software OR frit programmel

       * Dutch: vrije software

       * Esperanto: libera softvaro

       * Finnish: vapaa ohjelmisto

       * French: logiciel libre

       * German: freie Software

       * Hungarian: szabad szoftver

       * Icelandic: frjáls hugbúnaður

       * Indonesian: perangkat lunak bebas

       * Italian: software libero

       * Japanese: jiyuu-na software

       * Korean: ja-yu software

       * Norwegian: fri programvare

       * Polish: wolne oprogramowanie

       * Portuguese: software livre

       * Slovak: slobodny softver

       * Slovenian: prosto programje

       * Spanish: software libre

       * Swedish: fri programvara

       * Turkish: ozgur yazilim

     By forming a word in your own language, 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 countrymen, but once they see that it means exactly what it says, they will really understand what the issue is.

Give away software
     It's misleading to use the term ``give away'' to mean ``distribute a program as free software.'' It has the same problem as ``for free'': it implies the issue is price, not freedom. One way to avoid the confusion is to say ``release as free software.''

Intellectual property
     Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as ``intellectual property.'' This term carries a hidden assumption---that the most natural way to think about the issue of copying is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of them as property.

     But this analogy overlooks the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be. Basing your thinking on this analogy is tantamount to ignoring that difference.

     Even the U.S. legal system does not entirely accept this analogy, since it does not treat copyrights like physical-object property rights.

     If you don't want to limit yourself to this way of thinking, it is best to avoid using the term ``intellectual property'' in your words and thoughts.

     There is another problem with ``intellectual property'': it is a catch-all that lumps together several disparate legal systems, including copyright, patents, trademarks, and others, which have very little in common. These systems of law originated separately, cover different activities, operate in different ways, and raise different public policy issues. For instance, if you learn a fact about copyright law, you would do well to assume it is not true for patent law, since that is almost always true. Since these laws are so different, the term ``intellectual property'' is an invitation to simplistic overgeneralization. Any opinion about ``intellectual property'' is almost surely foolish. At that broad level, you can't even see the specific public policy issues raised by copyright law, or the different issues raised by patent law, or any of the others.

     The term ``intellectual property'' leads people to focus on the meager common aspect of these disparate laws, which is that they establish various abstractions that can be bought and sold, and ignore the important aspect, which is the restrictions they place on the public and what good or harm those restrictions cause.

     If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, copyrights, and trademarks, or even learn what these laws require, the first step is to forget that you ever heard the term ``intellectual property'' and treat them as unrelated subjects. To give clear information and encourage clear thinking, never speak or write about ``intellectual property''; instead, present the topic as copyright, patents, or whichever specific law you are discussing.

     According to Professor Mark Lemley of the University of Texas Law School, the widespread use of term ``intellectual property'' is a recent fad, arising from the 1967 founding of the World Intellectual Property Organization (See footnote 123 in his March 1997 book review, in the Texas Law Review, of Romantic Authorship and the Rhetoric of Property by James Boyle.) (WIPO). WIPO represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents, and trademarks, and lobbies governments to increase their power. One WIPO treaty follows the lines of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been used to censor useful free software packages in the U.S. (See http://www.wipout.net/ for a counter-WIPO campaign.)

Piracy
     Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as ``piracy.'' In this way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnaping and murdering the people on them.

     If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnaping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word ``piracy'' to describe it. Neutral terms such as ``prohibited copying'' or ``unauthorized copying'' are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as ``sharing information with your neighbor.''

Protection
     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.

     It is easy to avoid ``protection'' and use neutral terms instead. For example, instead of ``Copyright protection lasts a very long time,'' you can say, ``Copyright lasts a very long time.''

     If you want to criticize copyright instead of supporting it, you can use the term ``copyright restrictions.''

RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory)
     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.''

     That term whitewashes a class of patent licenses that are normally neither reasonable nor non-discriminatory. It is true that these licenses do not discriminate against any specific person, but they do discriminate against the free software community, and that makes them unreasonable. Thus, half of ``RAND'' is deceptive and the other half is prejudiced.

     Standards bodies should recognize that these licenses are discriminatory, and drop the use of the term ``reasonable and non-discriminatory'' or ``RAND'' to describe them. Until they do so, other writers who do not wish to join in the 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.

     I 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.

Sell software
     The term ``sell software'' is ambiguous. Strictly speaking, exchanging a copy of a free program for a sum of money is ``selling''; but people usually associate the term ``sell'' with proprietary restrictions on the subsequent use of the software. You can be more precise, and prevent confusion, by saying either ``distributing copies of a program for a fee'' or ``imposing proprietary restrictions on the use of a program,'' depending on what you mean.

     See ``Selling Free Software'' for more discussion of this issue.

Theft
     Copyright apologists often use words like ``stolen'' and ``theft'' to describe copyright infringement. At the same time, they ask us to treat the legal system as an authority on ethics: if copying is forbidden, it must be wrong.

     So it is pertinent to mention that the legal system---at least in the U.S.---rejects the idea that copyright infringement is ``theft.'' Copyright apologists are making an appeal to authority...and misrepresenting what the authority says.

     The idea that laws decide what is right or wrong is mistaken in general. Laws are, at their best, an attempt to achieve justice; to say that laws define justice or ethical conduct is turning things upside down.