It turns out that the GNU Org has some recommendations for people who are releasing software using the GPL or General Public License, these terms and reasons were taken directly from their website. I find these suggestions humorous so I am going to add some comical commentary to this page on the GNU Project or Free Software Foundation’s website (Confusing words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding):
“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 GNU 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.”
GNU is a brand, please don’t confuse people. Even though we want software to be a free for all love fest, we don’t want people to forget that we run this joint.
“Closed”
Describing non-free software as “closed” clearly refers to the term “open source”. In the free software movement, we want to avoid being confused with the more recent open source movement, 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 “proprietary”.
Again, don’t forget to say GNU, SELL THE BRAND!
“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. Later, 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” 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.
Even though we firmly believe that people shouldn’t make money for the software they make, we have a bad reputation for shitty software and want people to think that organizations that make quality software can be lumped in with 90% of the other garbage that gets the GPL.
“Compensation”
To speak of “compensation for authors” in connection with copyright carries the assumptions that (1) copyright exists for the sake of authors and (2) whenever we read something, the author is working for us so we owe him money. The first assumption is simply false, and the second is rather outrageous.
I think we have been clear here, if we allow people to sell their software, then we have to acknowledge that we stole it when we make a direct copy of it and call it our own so we can fight the man.
“Consumer”
The term “consumer”, when used to refer to computer users, carries unfortunate assumptions.
Economic theory uses the terms “producer” and “consumer”. In that context these words are appropriate. But describing the users of software as “consumers” presumes a narrow role for them. It treats them like 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 narrow economic vision of users as “consumers” tends to go hand in hand with the idea that published works are “content”.
To describe people who are not limited to passive consumption on their computers, we suggest terms such as “individuals” and “citizens”.
Consumer means you paid for something, we all hate money and want to be able to sit on a beach in a 3rd world country trading shells for food. We prefer the entire world pilfer their computers from the garbage dump, so we make software that runs reliably on that hardware.