[gnu-pl] wwwgnudiff - raport nr 369
Wojciech Kotwica <[email protected]> Wed, 08 Sep 2004 05:28:48 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.hurd.web.translators.polish |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
---------- NOWE PLIKI --------
Nowy plik: http://www.gnu.org/home.zhs.html
------------------------------
--- prev/www/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html Thu Aug 19 05:28:36 2004
+++ curr/www/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html Wed Sep 8 05:28:18 2004
@@ -38,42 +38,42 @@
<p>
<a href="/philosophy/philosophy.html">Other Texts to Read</a>
-| ``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#BSD-style"
- name="TOCBSD-style">BSD-style</a>''
-| ``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Closed"
- name="TOCClosed">Closed</a>''
-| ``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Commercial"
- name="TOCCommercial">Commercial</a>''
-| ``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Consumer"
- name="TOCConsumer">Consumer</a>''
-| ``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Content"
- name="TOCContent">Content</a>''
-| ``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Creator"
- name="TOCCreator">Creator</a>''
-| ``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#DigitalRightsManagement"
- name="TOCDigitalRightsManagement">Digital Rights Management</a>''
-| ``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#ForFree"
- name="TOCForFree">For free</a>''
-| ``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Freeware"
- name="TOCFreeware">Freeware</a>''
-| ``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#GiveAwaySoftware"
- name="TOCGiveAwaySoftware">Give away software</a>''
-| ``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty"
- name="TOCIntellectualProperty">Intellectual property</a>''
-| ``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Open"
- name="TOCOpen">Open</a>''
-| ``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Piracy"
- name="TOCPiracy">Piracy</a>''
-| ``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Protection"
- name="TOCProtection">Protection</a>''
-| ``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#RAND"
- name="TOCRAND">RAND</a>''
-| ``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#SellSoftware"
- name="TOCSellSoftware">Sell software</a>''
-| ``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#SoftwareIndustry"
- name="TOCSoftwareIndustry">Software Industry</a>''
-| ``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Theft"
- name="TOCTheft">Theft</a>''
-| ``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Vendor"
- name="TOCVendor">Vendor</a>''
+| "<a href="words-to-avoid.html#BSD-style"
+ name="TOCBSD-style">BSD-style</a>"
+| "<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Closed"
+ name="TOCClosed">Closed</a>"
+| "<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Commercial"
+ name="TOCCommercial">Commercial</a>"
+| "<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Consumer"
+ name="TOCConsumer">Consumer</a>"
+| "<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Content"
+ name="TOCContent">Content</a>"
+| "<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Creator"
+ name="TOCCreator">Creator</a>"
+| "<a href="words-to-avoid.html#DigitalRightsManagement"
+ name="TOCDigitalRightsManagement">Digital Rights Management</a>"
+| "<a href="words-to-avoid.html#ForFree"
+ name="TOCForFree">For free</a>"
+| "<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Freeware"
+ name="TOCFreeware">Freeware</a>"
+| "<a href="words-to-avoid.html#GiveAwaySoftware"
+ name="TOCGiveAwaySoftware">Give away software</a>"
+| "<a href="words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty"
+ name="TOCIntellectualProperty">Intellectual property</a>"
+| "<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Open"
+ name="TOCOpen">Open</a>"
+| "<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Piracy"
+ name="TOCPiracy">Piracy</a>"
+| "<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Protection"
+ name="TOCProtection">Protection</a>"
+| "<a href="words-to-avoid.html#RAND"
+ name="TOCRAND">RAND</a>"
+| "<a href="words-to-avoid.html#SellSoftware"
+ name="TOCSellSoftware">Sell software</a>"
+| "<a href="words-to-avoid.html#SoftwareIndustry"
+ name="TOCSoftwareIndustry">Software Industry</a>"
+| "<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Theft"
+ name="TOCTheft">Theft</a>"
+| "<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Vendor"
+ name="TOCVendor">Vendor</a>"
| <a href="/philosophy/philosophy.html">Other Texts to Read</a>
</p>
@@ -83,8 +83,8 @@
of Free Software</a>.</p>
-<h4>``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCBSD-style"
- name="BSD-style">BSD-style</a>''</h4>
+<h4>"<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCBSD-style"
+ name="BSD-style">BSD-style</a>"</h4>
<p>
-The expression ``BSD-style license'' leads to confusion because it
+The expression "BSD-style license" leads to confusion because it
<a href="/philosophy/bsd.html">lumps together licenses that have
important differences</a>. For instance, the original BSD license
@@ -93,25 +93,25 @@
<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>
+the specific license in question</a> and avoid the vague term "BSD-style."</p>
-<h4>``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCClosed"
- name="Closed">Closed</a>''</h4>
+<h4>"<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCClosed"
+ name="Closed">Closed</a>"</h4>
<p>
-Describing non-free software as ``closed'' clearly refers to the term
-``open source''. In the Free Software Movement,
+Describing non-free software as "closed" clearly refers to the term
+"open source". In the Free Software Movement,
<a href="/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html"> we want to avoid
being confused with the more recent Open Source Movement</a>, so we
are careful to avoid usage that would encourage people to lump us in
with them. Therefore, we avoid describing non-free software as
-``closed''. We call it ``non-free'' or
+"closed". We call it "non-free" or
<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">
-``proprietary''</a>.</p>
+"proprietary"</a>.</p>
-<h4>``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCCommercial"
- name="Commercial">Commercial</a>''</h4>
+<h4>"<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCCommercial"
+ name="Commercial">Commercial</a>"</h4>
<p>
-Please don't use ``commercial'' as a synonym for ``non-free.''
+Please don't use "commercial" as a synonym for "non-free."
That confuses two entirely different issues.</p>
<p>
@@ -130,12 +130,12 @@
<p>
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 the ``free commercial''
+should encourage it. But people who think that "commercial" means
+"non-free" 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>
+be careful not to use the word "commercial" in that way.</p>
-<h4>``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCConsumer"
- name="Consumer">Consumer</a>''</h4>
+<h4>"<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCConsumer"
+ name="Consumer">Consumer</a>"</h4>
<p>
The term "consumer", when used to refer to computer users,
@@ -160,9 +160,9 @@
-<h4>``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCContent"
- name="Content">Content</a>''</h4>
+<h4>"<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCContent"
+ name="Content">Content</a>"</h4>
<p>
If you want to describe a feeling of comfort and satisfaction, by all
-means say you are ``content'', but using it as a noun to describe
+means say you are "content", but using it as a noun to describe
written and other works of authorship is worth avoiding. That usage
adopts a specific attitude towards those works: that they are an
@@ -171,42 +171,42 @@
<p>
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
+increased copyright power in the name of the authors ("creators", as
+they say) of the works. The term "content" reveals what they really
feel.</p>
<p>
-As long as other people use the term ``content provider'', political
-dissidents can well call themselves ``malcontent providers''.</p>
+As long as other people use the term "content provider", political
+dissidents can well call themselves "malcontent providers".</p>
-<h4>``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCCreator"
- name="Creator">Creator</a>''</h4>
+<h4>"<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCCreator"
+ name="Creator">Creator</a>"</h4>
<p>
-The term ``creator'' as applied to authors implicitly compares them to
-a deity (``the creator''). The term is used by publishers to elevate
+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. We recommend saying ``author'' instead. However, in
-many cases ``copyright holder'' is what you really mean.</p>
+of the authors. We recommend saying "author" instead. However, in
+many cases "copyright holder" is what you really mean.</p>
-<h4>``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCDigitalRightsManagement"
- name="DigitalRightsManagement">Digital Rights Management</a>''</h4>
+<h4>"<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCDigitalRightsManagement"
+ name="DigitalRightsManagement">Digital Rights Management</a>"</h4>
<p>
-``Digital Rights Management'' software is actually designed to impose
-restrictions on computer users. The use of the word ``rights'' in
+"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 on whom the restrictions are imposed.</p>
<p>
-Good alternatives include ``Digital Restrictions Management''
-and ``handcuffware.''</p>
+Good alternatives include "Digital Restrictions Management"
+and "handcuffware."</p>
-<h4>``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCForFree"
- name="ForFree">For free</a>''</h4>
+<h4>"<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCForFree"
+ name="ForFree">For free</a>"</h4>
<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>
+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
@@ -216,18 +216,18 @@
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>
+To avoid confusion, you can say that the program is available "as
+free software."</p>
-<h4>``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCFreeware"
- name="Freeware">Freeware</a>''</h4>
+<h4>"<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCFreeware"
+ name="Freeware">Freeware</a>"</h4>
<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
+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>
Also, if you use other languages than English, please try to avoid
-borrowing English words such as ``free software'' or ``freeware.''
+borrowing English words such as "free software" or "freeware."
Try to use the less ambiguous wording that
<a href="/philosophy/fs-translations.html">your language</a>
@@ -243,24 +243,24 @@
</p>
-<h4>``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCGiveAwaySoftware"
- name="GiveAwaySoftware">Give away software</a>''</h4>
+<h4>"<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCGiveAwaySoftware"
+ name="GiveAwaySoftware">Give away software</a>"</h4>
<p>
-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'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.''</p>
+the confusion is to say "release as free software."</p>
-<h4>``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCIntellectualProperty"
- name="IntellectualProperty">Intellectual property</a>''</h4>
+<h4>"<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCIntellectualProperty"
+ name="IntellectualProperty">Intellectual property</a>"</h4>
<p>
-Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as ``intellectual
-property''---a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and other
+Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as "intellectual
+property"---a term that also includes 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>
+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 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 ideas of physical property.</p>
@@ -275,8 +275,8 @@
<p>
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
+best to avoid using the term "intellectual property" in your words
and thoughts.</p>
<p>
-``Intellectual property'' is also an unwise generalization. The term
+"Intellectual property" is also an unwise generalization. The term
is a catch-all that lumps together several disparate legal systems,
including copyright, patents, trademarks, and others, which have very
@@ -287,5 +287,5 @@
since that is almost always so.</p>
<p>
-Since these laws are so different, the term ``intellectual property''
+Since these laws are so different, the term "intellectual property"
is an invitation to simplistic thinking. It leads people to focus on
the meager common aspect of these disparate laws, which is that they
@@ -295,13 +295,13 @@
even see the specific public policy issues raised by copyright law, or
the different issues raised by patent law, or any of the others.
-Thus, any opinion about ``intellectual property'' is almost surely
+Thus, any opinion about "intellectual property" is almost surely
foolish.</p>
<p>
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
+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,
+"intellectual property"; instead, present the topic as copyright,
patents, or whichever specific law you are discussing.</p>
<p>
@@ -322,11 +322,11 @@
-<h4>``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCOpen"
- name="Open">Open</a>''</h4>
+<h4>"<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCOpen"
+ name="Open">Open</a>"</h4>
<p>
-Please avoid using the word ``open'' as a substitute for ``free
-software''. A <a href="/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html">
+Please avoid using the word "open" as a substitute for "free
+software". A <a href="/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html">
different group</a>, whose values are less idealistic than ours, uses
-``open source'' as its slogan. If you are referring to them, it is
+"open source" as its slogan. If you are referring to them, it is
proper to use their name, but please don't lump us in with them
or describe our work by their label---that leads people to think
@@ -334,8 +334,8 @@
-<h4>``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCPiracy"
- name="Piracy">Piracy</a>''</h4>
+<h4>"<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCPiracy"
+ name="Piracy">Piracy</a>"</h4>
<p>
-Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as ``piracy.'' In this
+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, kidnapping and murdering the people
@@ -343,15 +343,15 @@
<p>
If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnapping 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.''</p>
+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."</p>
-<h4>``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCProtection"
- name="Protection">Protection</a>''</h4>
+<h4>"<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCProtection"
+ name="Protection">Protection</a>"</h4>
<p>
-Publishers' lawyers love to use the term ``protection'' to describe
+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
@@ -359,21 +359,21 @@
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 ``Copyright protection lasts a very long time,''
-you can say, ``Copyright lasts a very long time.''</p>
+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."</p>
<p>
If you want to criticize copyright instead of supporting it, you can
-use the term ``copyright restrictions.'' So you can say, ``Copyright
-restrictions last a very long time.''</p>
+use the term "copyright restrictions." So you can say, "Copyright
+restrictions last a very long time."</p>
-<h4>``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCRAND"
- name="RAND">RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory)</a>''</h4>
+<h4>"<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCRAND"
+ name="RAND">RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory)</a>"</h4>
<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>
+They often refer to such licenses by the term "RAND," which stands
+for "reasonable and non-discriminatory."</p>
<p>
That term white-washes a class of patent licenses that are normally
@@ -381,10 +381,10 @@
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
+unreasonable. Thus, half of "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,
+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 white-washing would do
well to reject that term. To accept and use it merely because
@@ -392,19 +392,19 @@
companies dictate the views you express.</p>
<p>
-We suggest the term ``uniform fee only,'' or ``UFO'' for short, as a
+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>
-<h4>``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCSellSoftware"
- name="SellSoftware">Sell software</a>''</h4>
+<h4>"<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCSellSoftware"
+ name="SellSoftware">Sell software</a>"</h4>
<p>
-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
+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.</p>
+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.</p>
<p>
See <a href="/philosophy/selling.html">Selling Free Software</a> for
@@ -412,8 +412,8 @@
-<h4>``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCSoftwareIndustry"
- name="SoftwareIndustry">Software Industry</a>''</h4>
+<h4>"<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCSoftwareIndustry"
+ name="SoftwareIndustry">Software Industry</a>"</h4>
<p>
-The term ``software industry'' encourages people to imagine
+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
@@ -422,17 +422,17 @@
but those that develop free software are not like factories.</p>
<p>
-The term ``industry'' is being used as propaganda by advocates of
-software patents. They call software development ``industry'' and
+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 href="http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/">
The European Parliament, rejecting software patents
-in 2003, voted to define ``industry'' as ``automated production
-of material goods''.</a></p>
+in 2003, voted to define "industry" as "automated production
+of material goods".</a></p>
-<h4>``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCTheft"
- name="Theft">Theft</a>''</h4>
+<h4>"<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCTheft"
+ name="Theft">Theft</a>"</h4>
<p>
-Copyright apologists often use words like ``stolen'' and ``theft'' to
+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
@@ -440,5 +440,5 @@
<p>
So it is pertinent to mention that the legal system--at least in the
-US--rejects the idea that copyright infringement is ``theft.''
+US--rejects the idea that copyright infringement is "theft."
Copyright apologists are making an appeal to authority...and
misrepresenting what authority says.</p>
@@ -450,8 +450,8 @@
-<h4>``<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCVendor"
- name="Vendor">Vendor</a>''</h4>
+<h4>"<a href="words-to-avoid.html#TOCVendor"
+ name="Vendor">Vendor</a>"</h4>
<p>
-Please don't use the term ``vendor'' to refer generally to the
+Please don't use the term "vendor" to refer generally to the
developer of a software package. Many programs are developed in order
to sell copies, and their developers truly are vendors; this even
@@ -544,5 +544,5 @@
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2004/08/09 13:26:49 $ $Author: ealfert $
+$Date: 2004/09/07 13:29:48 $ $Author: corey $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>