[Sniffnoy]

In this case you could come up with a short name for it that doesn't refer to a person -- you could call it "logical duality", since, after all, it is both logical and a duality. But people know it as "DeMorgan", and in this context I think the most important thing is being understood. Those who don't know the law probably wouldn't recognize it if you called it "logical duality" either.

[jasomill]

True, but this leads right back to barrkel's point that the laws themselves are easier to explain than the names. To wit, without words,

http://jasomill.at/DeMorgan.pdf

In the design of programming languages one can let oneself be guided primarily by considering "what the machine can do". Considering, however, that the programming language is the bridge between the user and the machine --- that it can, in fact, be regarded as his tool --- it seems just as important to take into consideration "what Man can think". (Dijkstra [1])

And this is why mathematics is useful to software engineering.

[1] http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/ewd01xx/EWD117.PDF