Confusing Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding - GNU Project

Some Confusing or Loaded Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding

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

Also note Categories of Free Software (18k characters).

``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 FSF and universities. But in the 90s, 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'' are likely to assume the idea is self-contradictory, and reject it based on a misunderstanding. Let's be careful not to use the word ``commercial'' in that way.

``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 1980s for programs released only as executables, with source code not available. Today it has no particular agreed-on definition.

Also, if you use other languages 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, e.g.

Chinese: zi4you2 ruan3jian4
Dutch: vrije software
Esperanto: libera programaro
French: logiciel libre
German: freie Software
Hebrew: tochna hofshit
Japanese: jiyuu [na] sofuto
Russian: svobodny programy
Slovak : slobodny' softve'r
Spanish : Software [programa] libre
Swedish: fri programvara
Turkish : õzgür 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 they will get used to it soon and thereby find out about the real message behind free software.

``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 US legal system does not entirely accept this analogy, since it does not treat copyrights just 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.

Another problem with ``intellectual property'' is that it is an attempt to generalize about several legal systems, including copyright, patents, and trademarks, which are much more different than similar. Unless you have studied these areas of law and you know the differences, lumping them together will surely lead you to incorrect generalizations.

To avoid confusion, it is best not to look for alternative way of saying ``intellectual property.'' Instead, talk about copyright, patents, or whichever specific legal system is the issue.

``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.''

``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 US--rejects the idea that copyright infringement is ``theft''. Copyright advocates who use terms like ``stolen'' are misrepresenting the authority that they appeal to.

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.