Some Confusing or Loaded Words and Phrases to Avoid (or Use with Care)
There are a number of words and phrases that we recommend avoiding, or avoiding in certain contexts and usages. Some are ambiguous or misleading; others presuppose a viewpoint that we hope you disagree with.
Otros documentos para leer | «Tipo BSD» | «Cerrado» | «Computación en nube» | «Comercial» | «Compensación» | «Consumidor» | «Contenido» | «Creador» | «Bienes Digitales» | «Gestión de Derechos Digitales» | «Ecosistema» | «Gratuito» | «Disponible libremente» | «Freeware (software gratuito)» | «Regalar software» | «Hacker» | «Propiedad intelectual» | «Sistema LAMP» | «Sistema Linux» | «Mercado» | «Reproductor MP3» | «Abierto» | «PC» | «Photoshop» | «Piratería» | «PowerPoint» | «Protección» | «RAND» | «Vender software» | «Industria del software» | «Robo» | «Computación confiable» | «Vendedor»
«Tipo BSD»
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 GNU General Public License, but the revised BSD license is compatible with the GPL.
Para evitar confusión, es mejor nombrar la licencia específica en cuestión y evitar el término confuso «tipo BSD.»
«Cerrado»
Describing nonfree software as “closed” clearly refers to the term “open source”. In the free software movement, we do not want to be confused with the open source camp, so we are careful to avoid saying things that would encourage people to lump us in with them. For instance, we avoid describing nonfree software as “closed”. We call it “nonfree” or “proprietary”.
«Computación en nube»
The term “cloud computing” is a marketing buzzword with no clear 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 is a nexus of confusion. If you base your thinking on it, your thinking will be vague.
When thinking about or responding to a statement someone else has made using this term, the first step is to clarify the topic. Which kind of activity is the statement really about, and what is a good, clear term for that activity? Once the topic is clear, the discussion can head for a useful conclusion.
Curiously, Larry Ellison, a proprietary software developer, also noted the vacuity of the term “cloud computing.” He decided to use the term anyway because, as a proprietary software developer, he isn't motivated by the same ideals as we are.
«Comercial»
Please don't use “commercial” as a synonym for “nonfree.” 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 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.
En la primera década del movimiento por el software libre, los paquetes de software libre casi nunca eran comerciales; los componentes del sistema operativo GNU fueron programados por particulares o por organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro, como la FSF y universidades. Más adelante, en los años 90, empezó a aparecer software libre comercial.
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.
«Compensación»
Hablar de «compensación para los autores» en relación con los derechos de autor conlleva las asunciones que: (1) los derechos de autor existen para el bien de los autores, y (2) cada vez que leamos algo estamos en deuda con el autor, por lo que le debemos pagar. La primera asunción es simplemente falsa, y la segunda es bastante indignante.
«Consumidor»
The term “consumer,” when used to refer to computer users, is loaded with assumptions we should reject. Playing a digital recording, or running a program, does not consume it.
The terms “producer” and “consumer” come from economic theory, and bring with them its narrow prespective and misguided assumptions. They tend to warp your thinking.
In addition, describing the users of software as “consumers” presumes a narrow role for them: it regards them as cattle that passively graze on what others make available to them.
This kind of thinking leads to travesties like the CBDTPA “Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act” which would require copying restriction facilities in every digital device. If all the users do is “consume,” then why should they mind?
The shallow economic conception of users as “consumers” tends to go hand in hand with the idea that published works are mere “content.”
To describe people who are not limited to passive use of works, we suggest terms such as “individuals” and “citizens”.
«Contenido»
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 written and other works of authorship adopts an attitude you might rather avoid. It regards these works as a commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and make money. In effect, it disparages the works themselves.
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 their real attitude towards these works and their authors. (See Courtney Love's open letter to Steve Case and search for “content provider” in that page. Alas, Ms. Love is unaware that the term “intellectual property” is also biased and confusing.)
Sin embargo, mientras otras personas usen el término «proveedor de contenidos», los disidentes políticos podrían bien llamarlos «proveedor de malcontenidos».
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.
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” (WRS).
«Creador»
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.
«Bienes Digitales»
The term “digital goods,” as applied to copies of works of authorship, erroneously identifies them with physical goods—which cannot be copied, and which therefore have to be manufactured and sold.
«Gestión de Derechos Digitales»
La «gestión de derechos digitales» (del inglés «Digital Rights Management» o DRM) se refiere a esquemas técnicos diseñados para imponer restricciones a los usuarios de computadoras. El uso de la palabra «derechos» en este término es publicitario, diseñado a dirigirlo, sin que se dé cuenta, a ver el asunto desde el punto de vista de los pocos que imponen las restricciones; e ignorando que el público en general es sobre quién se imponen esas restricciones.
Good alternatives include “Digital Restrictions Management,” and “digital handcuffs.”
«Ecosistema»
It is a mistake to describe the free software community, or any human community, as an “ecosystem,” because that word implies the absence of (1) intention and (2) ethics. In an ecosystem, species evolve according to their fitness: if a species is weak and goes extinct, that's neither right nor wrong, merely an ecological phenomenon. The term “ecosystem” implicitly suggests a attitude of nonjudgmental observation: don't ask how what should happen, just study what does happen.
By contrast, beings that adopt an ethical stance towards their surroundings, and have ideas of ethical responsibility, can decide to preserve things that, on their own, would tend to vanish—such as civil society, democracy, human rights, peace, public health, clean air and water, endangered species, traditional arts…and computer users' freedom.
«Gratuitamente»
Si quiere decir que un programa es software libre, no diga que está disponible «gratuitamente», por favor. Ese término significa específicamente «a precio cero». El software libre es una cuestión de libertad, no de precio.
Las copias de software libre frecuentemente están disponibles gratuitamente; por ejemplo por descarga via FTP. Pero las copias de software libre también están disponibles por un precio en CD-ROMs; mientras tanto, las copias de software privativo están disponibles gratuitamente en promociones, y algunos paquetes privativos están normalmente disponibles sin costo a ciertos usuarios.
Para evitar confusión, puede decir que el programa está disponible «como software libre».
“Freely available”
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.
«Freeware» (software gratuito)
Por favor no use el término «freeware» como sinónimo de «software libre» [Nota del Traductor: en inglés, «freeware» podría confundirse con software libre]. El término «freeware» se usaba a menudo en los años 80 para programas liberados sólo como ejecutables, sin el código fuente disponible. Hoy en día no tiene una definición particular consensuada.
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 your language.
Usando una palabra en su propio idioma, muestra que se está refiriendo realmente a la libertad y no sólo repitiendo algún misterioso concepto extranjero de mercadotecnia. La referencia a la libertad puede en principio resultar extraña o chocante a sus compatriotas, pero una vez que vean que significa exactamente lo que dice, entenderán realmente cuál es el problema.
«Regalar software»
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.”
Hacker
A hacker is someone who enjoys playful cleverness—not necessarily with computers. The programmers in the old MIT 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.”
Please don't spread this mistake. People who break security are “crackers.”
«Propiedad intelectual»
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.”
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.
Cuando se trata de copiar, esta analogía deja de lado la diferencia crucial entre los objetos materiales y la información: la información puede ser copiada y compartida casi sin esfuerzo, mientras que los objetos materiales no se puede.
To avoid spreading unnecessary bias and confusion, it is best to adopt a firm policy not to speak or even think in terms of “intellectual property”.
The hypocrisy of calling these powers “rights” is starting to make the World “Intellectual Property” Organization embarrassed.
«Sistema LAMP»
“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.”
Sistema Linux
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 GNU/Linux, both to give the GNU Project credit and to distinguish the whole system from the kernel alone.
«Mercado»
It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the software users in general, as a “market.”
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.
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 business' efforts for mere success is to deny the importance of freedom and legitimize proprietary software.
«Reproductor MP3»
In the late 1990's it became feasible to make portable, solid-state digital audio players. Most support the patented MP3 codec, but not all. Some support the patent-free audio codecs Ogg Vorbis and FLAC, and may not even support MP3-encoded files at all, precisely to avoid these patents. To call such players “MP3 players” is not only confusing, it also puts MP3 in an undeserved position of privilege which encourages people to continue using that vulnerable format. We suggest the terms “digital audio player,” or simply “audio player” if context permits.
«Abierto»
Please avoid using the term “open” or “open source” as a substitute for “free software”. Those terms refer to a different position based on different values. Free software is a political movement; open source is a development model. When referring to the open source position, using its name is appropriate; but please do not use it to label us or our work—that leads people to think we share those views.
«PC»
Está bien usar la abreviatura «PC» para referirse a un cierto tipo de hardware de computadoras. Pero por favor, no la use con la implicación de que la computadora está ejecutando Windows de Microsoft. Si instala GNU/Linux en la misma computadora sigue siendo una PC.
La expresión «WC» se sugirió para denominar a una computadora que ejecute Windows. [Nota del traductor: «WC» viene del inglés «Windows Computer»].
«Photoshop»
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 alternatives, such as GIMP.
«Piratería»
Los editores a menudo se refieren a la copia no permitida por ellos como «piratería». De este modo, implican que es equivalente en términos éticos a atacar barcos en alta mar y secuestrar y asesinar a la gente que viaja en ellos. Basados en dicha publicidad, han logrado que la mayoría de las leyes del mundo prohiban la copia en la mayoría de, o en algunos casos todas, las circunstancias, y siguen presionando para hacer las prohibiciones más completas.
Si no cree que copiar sin la autorización del editor sea idéntico a secuestrar o asesinar, tal vez preferiría no usar la palabra «piratería» para describirlo. Existen términos neutrales que se pueden usar en lugar de los anteriores, como «copia no autorizada» o «copia prohibida» para la situación en donde sea ilegal. Algunos de nosotros incluso podría preferir usar un término positivo tal como «compartir información con el prójimo».
«PowerPoint»
Please avoid using the term “PowerPoint” to mean any kind of slide presentation. PowerPoint is just the name of one particular proprietary program to make presentations, and there are plenty of free alternatives, such as TeX's beamer class and OpenOffice.org's Impress.
«Protección»
A los abogados de los editores les encanta usar el término «protección» para describir a los derechos de autor. Dicha palabra implica prevenir la destrucción o sufrimiento; por consiguiente, impulsa a la gente a identificarse con el dueño y editor, que se benefician de los derechos de autor, más que con los usuarios a quienes restringe.
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.”
If you want to criticize copyright instead of supporting it, you can use the term “copyright restrictions.” Thus, you can say, “Copyright restrictions last a very long time.”
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 can call that malicious feature “copy obstruction.”
“RAND (reasonable and nondiscriminatory)”
Los organismos de estandarización que promulgan estándares restringidos por patentes que prohíben el software libre, típicamente tienen una política para la obtención de licencias de patentes que requieren una tarifa fija por copia de un programa que cumpla con esas condiciones. A menudo, se refieren a dichas licencias con el término «RAND», que quiere decir «razonable y no discriminatorio» (del inglés «RAND», reasonable and non-discriminatory).
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.
Standards bodies should recognize that these licenses are discriminatory, and drop the use of the term “reasonable and nondiscriminatory” or “RAND” to describe them. Until they do so, writers who do not wish to join in the whitewashing would do well to reject that term. To accept and use it merely because patent-wielding companies have made it widespread is to let those companies dictate the views you express.
Sugerimos el término «sólo tarifa uniforme», o «UFO» en inglés, como un reemplazo [Nota del traductor: «UFO» en inglés también significa «OVNI»]. Resulta preciso porque la única condición en estas licencias es la tarifa uniforme por regalías.
«Vender 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 further discussion of this issue.
«Industria del Software»
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.
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. The European Parliament, rejecting software patents in 2003, voted to define “industry” as “automated production of material goods.”
«Robo»
Los seguidores de los derechos de autor usan frecuentemente palabras como «robo» o «hurto» para describir la infracción de los derechos de autor. Al mismo tiempo, nos piden que tratemos al sistema legal como una autoridad ética: si copiar está prohibido, debe ser malo.
So it is pertinent to mention that the legal system—at least in the US—rejects the idea that copyright infringement is “theft.” Copyright apologists are making an appeal to authority…and misrepresenting what authority says.
En general, la idea que las leyes decidan lo que está bien y mal es esquivocada. Las leyes son, en el mejor de los casos, un intento de lograr justicia; decir que las leyes definen la justicia o las conductas éticas es dar vuelta las cosas en sentido opuesto.
«Computación confiable»
“Trusted computing” is the proponents' name for a scheme to redesign computers so that application developers can trust your computer to obey them instead of you. For their point of view, it is “trusted”; from your point of view, it is “treacherous.”
«Vendedor»
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.