Mismatched links: 71.

Mismatched ids: 0.

&ldquo;<a href="#Ad-blocker">Ad-blocker</a>&rdquo; | 
&ldquo;<a href="#Access">Access</a>&rdquo; | 
&ldquo;<a href="#Alternative">Alternative</a>&rdquo; | 
&ldquo;<a href="#Assets">Assets</a>&rdquo; | 
&ldquo;<a href="#Consume">Consume</a>&rdquo; | 
&ldquo;<a href="#CopyrightOwner">Copyright Owner</a>&rdquo; | 
&ldquo;<a href="#CreativeCommonsLicensed">Creative Commons licensed</a>&rdquo; | 
&ldquo;<a href="#DigitalLocks">Digital Locks</a>&rdquo; | 
&ldquo;<a href="#FLOSS">FLOSS</a>&rdquo; | 
&ldquo;<a href="#FOSS">FOSS</a>&rdquo; | 
&ldquo;<a href="#Google">Google</a>&rdquo; | 
&ldquo;<a href="#InternetofThings">Internet of Things</a>&rdquo; | 
&ldquo;<a href="#Modern">Modern</a>&rdquo; | 
&ldquo;<a href="#Monetize">Monetize</a>&rdquo; | 
&ldquo;<a href="#OptOut">Opt out</a>&rdquo; | 
„<a href="#Open">Отворено</a>“ | 
&ldquo;<a href="#Product">Product</a>&rdquo; | 
&ldquo;<a href="#SaaS">SaaS</a>&rdquo; | 
&ldquo;<a href="#SharingPersonalData">Sharing (personal data)</a>&rdquo; | 
&ldquo;<a href="#SharingEconomy">Sharing economy</a>&rdquo; | 
&ldquo;<a href="#Skype">Skype</a>&rdquo; | 
&ldquo;<a href="#SourceModel">Source model</a>&rdquo; | 
&ldquo;<a href="#Terminal">Terminal</a>&rdquo; | 
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> 
Погледајте и <a href="/philosophy/categories.html">Врсте слободног софтвера</a>. 
The <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">criterion for free software</a> is not about who has &ldquo;access&rdquo; 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. 
We believe that distribution as free software is the only ethical way to make software 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 as a Software Substitute</a> subjugate their users. We do not think it is good to offer users those &ldquo;alternatives&rdquo; to free software. 
To refer to published works as &ldquo;assets,&rdquo; or &ldquo;digital assets,&rdquo; is even worse than calling them <a href="#Content">&ldquo;content&rdquo;</a>&mdash;it presumes they have no value to society except commercial value. 
One of the many meanings of &ldquo;cloud computing&rdquo; is storing your data in online services. In most scenarios, that is foolish because it exposes you to <a href="https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/25/hackers-spooks-cloud-antiauthoritarian-dream">surveillance</a>. 
Another meaning (which overlaps that but is not the same thing) is <a href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html"> Service as a Software Substitute</a>, which denies you control over your computing. You should never use SaaSS. 
The <a href="https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-145/final"> NIST definition of &ldquo;cloud computing&rdquo;</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 &ldquo;cloud computing,&rdquo; 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. 
Curiously, Larry Ellison, a proprietary software developer, also <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/oracles-ellison-nails-cloud-computing/"> noted the vacuity of the term &ldquo;cloud computing.&rdquo;</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. 
Интересантно је да је Лари Елисон (<em>Larry Ellison</em>), градитељ власничког софтвера, такође <a href="http://www.cnet.com/news/oracles-ellison-nails-cloud-computing/">приметио неодређеност израза „рачунарство у облаку“.</a> Он је ипак одлучио да користи израз јер, као градитељ власничког софтвера, он није мотивисан идеалима којима смо мотивисани ми. 
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. It is no surprise that proprietary software 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 &ldquo;<a href="#Content">content</a>.&rdquo; 
The narrow thinking associated with the idea that we &ldquo;consume content&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;consume,&rdquo; they may see such restrictions as natural. 
The term &ldquo;consumer,&rdquo; when used to refer to the users of computing, is loaded with assumptions we should reject. Some come from the idea that using the program &ldquo;consumes&rdquo; the program (see <a href="#Consume">the previous entry</a>), which leads people to impose on copiable digital works the economic conclusions that were drawn about uncopiable material products. 
Израз „потрошач“ носи са собом гомилу непожељних претпоставки када се употребљава да означи кориснике рачунара. Пуштањем се дигитални снимак, као ни програм покретаењм, не троши. Изрази „произвођач“ и „потрошач“ потичу из економске теорије, и намећу њене погрешне претпоставке и уску визуру економске теорије. То тежи ка извртању вашег начина мишљења. 
In addition, describing the users of software as &ldquo;consumers&rdquo; refers to a framing in which people are limited to selecting between whatever &ldquo;products&rdquo; are available in the &ldquo;market.&rdquo; There is no room in this framing for the idea that users can <a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">directly exercise control over what a program does</a>. 
Осим тога, називање корисника софтвера „потрошачима“ им прописује врло ограничену улогу. Они се третирају као стока која незаинтересовано пасе све што јој други обезбеде.</p>
Плитка економска визија корисника као „потрошача“ води ка идеји да су објављена дела „садржај“. Овај начин размишљања води до травестија као што је УКТШПОДТ „Уредба о корисницима телевизије широког пропусног опсега и дигиталне телевизије“ (енгл. <em>CBDTPA — Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act</em>) које би захтевале постојање средстава за ограничење умножавања у сваком дигиталном уређају. Ако корисници само „користе“, зашто би онда покретачи те уредбе били забринути? 
This problem with the word &ldquo;consumer&rdquo; has been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/11/capitalism-language-raymond-williams">noted before</a>. 
Those who use the term &ldquo;content&rdquo; are often the publishers that push for increased copyright power in the name of the authors (&ldquo;creators,&rdquo; as they say) of the works. The term &ldquo;content&rdquo; reveals their real attitude towards these works and their authors. This was also recognized by Tom Chatfield <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/aug/02/how-to-deal-with-trump-trolls-online">in the Guardian</a>: 
Овај израз често користе издавачи који на силу желе да увећају моћ ауторских права, а све у име аутора (или „стваралаца“, како их они називају) дела. Израз „садржај“ открива њихова стварна осећања. 
See also <a href="https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/">Courtney Love's open letter to Steve Case</a> and search for &ldquo;content provider&rdquo; in that page. Alas, Ms. Love is unaware that the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; is also <a href="#IntellectualProperty"> biased and confusing</a>. 
Погледајте <a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/">Отворено писмо Кортни Лав (<em>Courtney Love</em>) Стиву Кејсу (<em>Steve Case</em>)</a> (тражите „<em>content provider</em>“ на тој страници. Нажалост, гђа Лав није свесна да и израз „интелектуална својина“ <a href="#IntellectualProperty">упућује на погрешан закључак</a>. 
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">&ldquo;intellectual property,&rdquo;</a> they also started calling themselves &ldquo;copyright owners.&rdquo; Please join us in resisting by using the traditional term &ldquo;copyright holders&rdquo; instead. 
Locks are not necessarily oppressive or bad. You probably own several locks, and their keys or codes as well; you may find them useful or troublesome, but they don't oppress you, because you can open and close 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. 
Please sign up to support our <a href="https://DefectiveByDesign.org/"> campaign to abolish DRM</a>. 
The term &ldquo;FLOSS,&rdquo; meaning &ldquo;Free/Libre and Open Source Software,&rdquo; 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, &ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; is the best way to be neutral. But if you want to show you stand for freedom, don't use a neutral term. 
The term &ldquo;FOSS,&rdquo; meaning &ldquo;Free and Open Source Software,&rdquo; 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, &ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; is better. But if you want to show you stand for freedom, don't use a neutral term. 
Please avoid using the term &ldquo;google&rdquo; as a verb, meaning to search for something on the internet. &ldquo;Google&rdquo; is just the name of one particular search engine among others. We suggest to use the term &ldquo;search the web&rdquo; or (in some contexts) just &ldquo;search.&rdquo; 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.) 
A hacker is someone who <a href="https://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html"> enjoys playful cleverness</a>&mdash;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 &ldquo;security breaker.&rdquo; 
Хакер је свако ко <a href="http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html">ужива у разиграној бистрини</a>, не обавезно укључујући и рачунаре. Програмери заједнице слободног софтвера старог <abbr title="Масачусетски институт за технологију">МИТ</abbr>-а шездесетих и седамдесетих су се међусобно називали хакерима. Око 1980., новинари који су открили заједницу хакера су погрешно тим називом означили „разбијаче безбедности“. 
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. 
Please avoid using the term &ldquo;photoshop&rdquo; 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 href="https://www.gimp.org/">GIMP</a>. 
Молимо вас да избегавате употребу израза „фотошоп“ у својству глагола<sup><a href="#TransNote7">[7]</a></sup> који означава било какву врсту манипулације фотографијама или уређивање слика у општем смислу. Фотошоп је назив само једног одређеног власничког програма за уређивање слика, а постоје бројне алтернативе, као што је <a href="/software/gimp">Гимп</a>. 
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/">&ldquo;piracy&rdquo; and &ldquo;theft&rdquo; are smear words.</a> 
The term &ldquo;protection&rdquo; is also used to describe malicious features. For instance, &ldquo;copy protection&rdquo; is a feature that interferes with copying. From the user's point of view, this is obstruction. So we could call that malicious feature &ldquo;copy obstruction.&rdquo; More often it is called Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)&mdash;see the <a href="https://DefectiveByDesign.org"> Defective by Design</a> campaign. 
Израз „заштита“ се користи и за описивање злонамерних одлика, као што је то у изразу „заштита од копирања“, одлика која спречава копирање. Са корисничке тачке гледишта, ово представља опструкцију. Зато ми називамо ту злонамерну одлику „опструкцијом копирања“. 
See <a href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">Who Does That Server Really Serve?</a> for discussion of this issue. 
The term &ldquo;sell software&rdquo; is ambiguous. Strictly speaking, exchanging a copy of a free program for a sum of money is <a href="/philosophy/selling.html"> selling the program</a>, and there is nothing wrong with doing that. However, people usually associate the term &ldquo;selling software&rdquo; with proprietary restrictions on the subsequent use of the software. You can be clear, and prevent confusion, by saying either &ldquo;distributing copies of a program for a fee&rdquo; or &ldquo;imposing proprietary restrictions on the use of a program.&rdquo; 
Израз „продаја софтвера“ је двосмислен. Строго говорећи, размена примерка слободног програма у замену за своту новца јесте „продаја“, али људи обично повезују израз „продавати“ са власничким ограничењима над каснијом употребом софтвера. Морате бити прецизнији и спречити забуну говорећи или „расподела примерака програма уз надокнаду“ или „наметање власничких ограничења на употребу програма“, у зависности од тога шта хоћете да кажете. 
Please avoid using the term &ldquo;skype&rdquo; as a verb, meaning any kind of video communication or telephony over the Internet in general. &ldquo;Skype&rdquo; 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>. 
The term &ldquo;industry&rdquo; is being used as propaganda by advocates of software patents. They call software development &ldquo;industry&rdquo; and then try to argue that this means it should be subject to patent monopolies. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20071215073111/http://eupat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/" title="archived version of http://eupat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/">The European Parliament, rejecting software patents in 2003, voted to define &ldquo;industry&rdquo; as &ldquo;automated production of material goods.&rdquo;</a> 
Израз „индустрија“ се користи као вид пропаганде бранилаца софтверских патената. Они називају изградњу софтвера „индустријом“ и онда покушавају да одбране став да би је требало подвргнути патентним монополима. <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20071222001014/http://www.swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/" title="archived version of http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/">Европски парламент, одбацујући софтверске патенте 2003. године, изгласао је да се „индустрија“ дефинише као „аутоматизована производња материјалних добара“.</a> 
Under the US legal system, copyright infringement is not theft. <a href="https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=473&amp;invol=207"> Laws about theft are not applicable to copyright infringement.</a> The supporters of repressive copyright are making an appeal to authority&mdash;and misrepresenting what authority says. 
Значајно је напоменути да правни систем (бар у САД) <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=473&amp;invol=207"> одбацује идеју да је кршење ауторских права „крађа“</a>. Браниоци система ауторских права апелују на власт, и погрешно тумаче шта она прописује. 
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 &ldquo;copyright theft.&rdquo; 
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/">&ldquo;piracy&rdquo; and &ldquo;theft&rdquo; are smear-words.</a> 
<a href="/philosophy/can-you-trust.html">&ldquo;Trusted computing&rdquo;</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 &ldquo;trusted&rdquo;; from your point of view, it is &ldquo;treacherous.&rdquo; 
<a href="can-you-trust.html">„Рачунарство са поверењем“</a> је пристрасни назив плана поновног дизајнирања рачунара како би градитељи апликација могли да имају поверења да ће ваш рачунар слушати њих уместо вас. Са њихове тачке гледишта, то је „поверење“. Са ваше тачке гледишта, то је „издаја“. 
This essay is published in <a href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman</cite></a>. 
Овај есеј је објављен у књизи <a href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Слободни софтвер, слободно друштво: Одабрани есеји Ричарда М. Сталмана</cite></a>. 
Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</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">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>. 
Молимо вас да шаљете питања у вези са ЗСС-ом и ГНУ-ом на адресу <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>. Постоје и <a href="/contact/">други начини да се обратите</a> ЗСС-у. Молимо вас да шаљете неисправне везе и друге исправке (или предлоге) на адресу <a href="mailto:mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;mailto:webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.