'Intellectual Property' doesn't exist at all, people just like to group copyright, trademarks and patents into the same term despite the separate, drastically different sets of laws backing them.
Lewis Hyde's Common As Air is a good read on the framers' original intentions when it came to issues like this, and why our modern system is in violation of their original constitutional mandate. Personally enjoyed it more than his other well known work The Gift.
On the subject of the article, and as per Bradley Kuhn's analysis[1], it should be noted that the court did not consider the question of fair use in this case and a jury will be able to sit down and consider that can of worms going forward. Not the end of the world, considering.
It's not going to interfere with anything: sponsored tiles aren't going to replace any of your newtab tiles (pinned or otherwise) in an old profile.
This is simply for new users and new profiles, to populate the newtab page with useful links until all of those items would be sufficiently populated.
Or you could click the button in the top-right hand corner of the newtab page to turn the tiles off completely (it also seems to disable thumbnailing now, you had to turn that off manually a few versions back.)
oh boy, another GPL debate! phk was right, seems we never get tired of this stupid shit.
It didn't make itself "deliberately incompatible" with all free licenses before it, for example MIT/X11 is definitely compatible. Why is the original BSD license singled out?
Many people besides you believe proprietary software is harmful enough to enact defense mechanisms when proprietary software vendors harm the user and lock down free software into their products.
The vast majority of distros seem to agree that standardization is a good thing in the switch to systemd. If you don't want to be standardized maintain it yourself, see: GoboLinux.
But modularity of Linux doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Contrary to what the author says, systemd is not monolithic but rather consists of protocols and multiple daemons outside of PID1.
There doesn't seem to be any plans to stop one from using anything other than systemd on say Debian either. As far as I know the only hard requirement for systemd (really logind) is with Gnome on Wayland for user seats, because Consolekit is dead. Gnome seems to be willing to work with the *BSDs et al who have no plans to switch to systemd.
>Australis sealed the deal and made them nearly identical in the most critical ways.
How is that? Using the hamburger icon, which was used by Mozilla in mockups before Chrome used it, or rounded tabs (which Chrome doesn't actually use), or making the customization UI (something which Chrome doesn't have, yet again) not look like it's from the year 2000?
Please identify the critical ways in which it's imitating Chrome.
The most important aspects for me would be customization, and Chrome doesn't offer anything in the same ballpark. And with Chrome, you have to resort to tedious workarounds to install certain extensions if you don't want to login to your Google account. And if we ignore all of that, Firefox's add-on ecosystem wins too.
People get upset at every UI rehaul; you could hear much the same sentiment after Firefox 3.
History will judge Eich just fine. He's a great technologist, and the Open Web owes a huge debt to him. He's probably done more for equality and inclusiveness than anyone who protested his appointment.
That's the real tradgedy here: the world, and Mozilla, lost a great ally (for now.)
Ah yes, he could've spared himself the trouble by just parroting empty words. The heretic should've just recanted!
>there is no reason to believe his vague "stance" on equality.
There is: no one at Mozilla Co. publically doubted his stance on equality, in fact you had many coming to his side. It was people at Mozilla Fnd. who've never interacted with him, were the ones with doubts.
But instead of waiting for Eich, who said "I can only ask for your support to have the time to “show, not tell”; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain,[1]" to actually back up his words with actions, a bunch of social justice warriors decided that the heretic must burn. I'm not going to call them equal-marriage rights advocates because they're just acted like a bunch of bullies who thought he'd somehow "evolve" like our politicking President did.
It's shameful.
Hello to the person who decided to downvote all of my posts in a dead discussion, though. You must be so proud. Could've at least replied with a comment comparing Eich to the KKK or something.
Phil Donahue is a nice example, I'll concede, but it says more about the corruption of the MSM than anything.
>Why should I give money to an organization who's going to turn around and give it to a guy who's going to use it to compare my friends to child molesters
Where's the evidence that Eich has compared your friends to child molesters? You have none. Eich reaffirmed his own stance on equality going forward, at issue is that he just didn't want to recant his support for Prop 8, for which he donated his own money on his own time.
I'm not going to dignify your bullshit with any further responses just based on that comment.
>Liberals get fired by their conservative employers for their views all the time. It's nice to see it work the other way for once.
Where's the evidence? And regardless of whether that's true or not, it's not right: you're effectively feeding social pressure to keep your beliefs private out of fear for retribution.
Almost as if you're reinforcing another closet on everyone else.
>Sucks to see it thrown back at you, doesn't it? Time to eat your own dogfood.
Tit for tat bullshit: you are no better than the anti-gay bullies.
I've supported equal marriage rights since high school, for the record, and lean left-lib.
The left-wing anti-liberalism streak that's fueled this crisis is apalling to me personally. And those who were so insistent on burning Eich, the heretic, because he wouldn't recant will hopefully regret their actions once it happens to someone, for example, who donates to Planned Parenthood and is pressured to resign by a bunch of conservatives.
If you would have been outraged if he was pressured to resign for having the opposite opinion but think what happened is somehow appropriate: you are a bigot.
I wish him the best of luck, some good rest to think things over, and know that (despite his opinion otherwise) we are worse off when there's a Mozilla without Eich.
I asked you if you were equating Eich with homophobic bigots, and you confirmed that you did.
And no, I wouldn't feel the same way. As I said in that post, there's no biological basis or objective fact for refusing to accept interracial marriages. They're only justified by racism. There is however, a biological reason that Eich and others might not accept same-sex marriages.
It's a rational, yet very ignorant view. The point is that opposing same-sex marriage is definitely not the same when you do a direct comparison to interracial marriage bans.
Either way: the damage is done, the bridges were burned, and it's clear that you're among those who just want to be outraged about this group of people's ignorance instead of reaching out to them and striving for dialog, so there's no point in having this conversation.
>My point is that people who opposed interracial marriage thought that they had a rational basis for doing so (even though it didn't make sense); similarly, people who oppose gay marriage today also think they have rational bases for doing so, even though they don't make sense.
Not really, as I said before there’s no biological basis for refusing to accept an interracial relationship as a marriage.
I'm not going to continue defending views that aren't my own, so if you're interested in reading what exactly "traditional marriage" defenders are talking about then try this review: http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Georg... (pdf)
No: They believe that marriage is a union that's only between a man and a woman, which has long social and cultural roots. Justified by the fact that same-sex couples categorically can't reproduce with each other.
Of course these objections to same-sex marriage have a slight problem: egg and sperm donations. But it's not exactly typical biological reproduction.
It's pretty stupid, but not everyone who holds these objections is a homophobic bigot. And, to be clear, I'm not attempting to act as an apologist for whatever views Eich holds: I'm just trying to refute the direct comparison between same-sex and interacial marriage bans. Because it's in every thread multiple times, and usually with a KKK reference which is absurd.
There was really no way this situation would have ended well regardless of how it turned out, because both sides seem incapable of communicating.
You don't seem to understand: they can be rational and maintain that a relationship between two people categorically incapable of producing children together biologically, two people of the same sex, can’t be a marriage.
It's ignorant, places way too much emphasis on sex rather than committment and love, and is justified by stupid ideas like marriage being "reserved" for heterosexual couples for the purpose of procreation, but it's rational. It also leads to seperate but equal legal frameworks, which are bullshit.
Bans on interracial marriage were irrational, not relying on a single objective fact.
What I would like: abolish state-recognized marriages altogether. Civil partnerships for everyone, let churches squabble about marriage if someone wants a ceremony, and they can enter into a partnership for benefits.
What's practical: modifying our legal framework for marriage across the states.
That direct comparison doesn't work either: The herd mentality in religious circles is that because same-sex couples can’t produce biological children together, they shouldn't be recognized as marriages. This is rational if you see the institution of marriage as a state-recognized union between that's only between a man and a woman, which has long social and cultural roots.
Bans on interracial marriages, on the other hand, are just justified by racism and not objective facts.
Eich is ignorant, but I'm pretty sure he's not a bigot.
I agree with Sullivan's take[1] posted yesterday. If this is the gay-rights movement today, a bunch of extremist Social Justice Warriors, I want no part of it.
Not only that, but Catlin's reaction to it[2] is also shameful: 'oops, we thought he would evolve like President Obama did, our bad. but hey, we're putting our apps back on the marketplace!'
I look at it from a practicality standpoint: abolishing the state-recognized marriage institution and just leaving religions to squabble amongst each other while moving everyone to civil partnerships for the benefits is impractical. So marriage is going to have to be redefined, whether they like it or not.
That's not concrete evidence, sorry. Your logic is faulty:
1) You're equating his monetary support for Prop 8 as evidence of homophobic bigotry, which by itself it is not.
It's quite obvious that Eich is deeply religious: the herd mentality in those circles is that because same-sex couples can’t produce biological children together, they shouldn't be recognized as marriages.
This is rational if you see the institution of marriage as a state-recognized union between that's only between a man and a woman, which has long social and cultural roots. The same can not be said for bans on interracial marriages which are just backed by racism, and not objective facts.
Ultimately, assuming that these are Eich's views (which is very likely,) they are ignorant because they focus too much on sex and too little on the idea of commitment and love.
What they aren't: grounds for throwing around labels like "homophobic bigot," as there are many who empathize with those who are discriminated against, abused, disowned, lynched and executed because of their expression of gender identity. They see nothing wrong with homosexuals, but rather take issue with marriage as an institution being redefined.
Haven't seen any evidence that Eich opposes civil partnerships. I want nothing to do with marriage personally and would much rather a civil partnership for my relationship, but dissolving the state-recognized institution of marriage completely is very messy.
So redefining marriage is the best choice, lest we have separate but equal legal frameworks: marriages for heterosexual couples and civil unions for homosexual couples as well as heterosexual couples who want nothing to do with marriage but want the benefits it brings.
2) You're comparing Eich to the KKK which executed thousands of people, which is a disgusting comparison but you may just be historically ignorant.
Eich was pressured to resign just because he wouldn't parrot empty words about how he's "evolved" on the issue in the court of public opinion, like President Obama has.
And we're worse off for it, because he was the most qualified to lead Mozilla.
Lewis Hyde's Common As Air is a good read on the framers' original intentions when it came to issues like this, and why our modern system is in violation of their original constitutional mandate. Personally enjoyed it more than his other well known work The Gift.
On the subject of the article, and as per Bradley Kuhn's analysis[1], it should be noted that the court did not consider the question of fair use in this case and a jury will be able to sit down and consider that can of worms going forward. Not the end of the world, considering.
[1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/05/10/oracle-google.html