What Guy believes, how informed he is, how offensive what he did is, or how big of a douchebag he may be is all 100% irrelevant to whether or not what he did is a trademark violation. It seems screamingly obvious to me that this is not such a violation. I can't see how there is any way that people will think that the Sanders campaign produced this, or that there is any risk of dilution.
This is about whether or not the Sanders campaign is going to engage in the abuse of a law to suppress someone saying something they hate. How Sanders handles this is going to mean a lot.
I'm unaware of any that disagree. But I want to be very clear, I'm talking about courts saying that moderating in and of itself does not invalidate safe harbors. If you know of a court that said otherwise, I'd be very interested in that.
However, there have been a couple of cases where safe harbor has been invalidated and moderating was a part of why -- but it wasn't the moderating itself was the issue. It was the moderation in combination with other activities that did.
This sort of case has been made in a few courts now, and so far they all agree that just filtering user content does not invalidate the safe harbor protections.
Discrimination is entirely legal in the US, as long as it isn't based on one of the things in the short list (age, race, religion, gender, etc.). The legal argument in the bakery case is one of whether or not sexual orientation is in the list. Political orientation is certainly not in the list. I'm glossing over lots of edge conditions, of course. Also, I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with how the law works on this, only that this is how the law works.
All of the years of watching how Facebook operates has taught me that Facebook cannot be trusted or believed about anything. Particularly when they make a promise.
Android apps are really Java apps with lots of gui customizations. It's all the gui and OS specific calls that make translation difficult.
Not all Android apps are Java apps. Many are written in a compiled language (usually C++), although they are a minority because they are not platform agnostic, so tend to be ones that require high performance or determinacy.
Technically, money that is given to Mozilla Foundation does not go into development at all. That's the arm of Mozilla that engages in public awareness, lobbying, etc.
I agree with you, though. My interpretation of what Mozilla is saying here is that they agree with you as well. They are not dropping Thunderbird unceremoniously, they are looking for a good group to hand the reigns over to. Even if that doesn't happen, though, Thunderbird is being maintained by an outside group in the form of FossaMail (there are other TBird forks that are under active development too -- some commercial, some not -- but FossaMail seems to get the most positive comments).
Mozilla, you already won the browser wars. There's a lot of other work to do.
They did win the browser wars, only to have turned that victory into a defeat. Firefox is now the fourth most popular browser, with 11% of the "browser market" (and its popularity continues to slide). It's less popular than Safari.
Of course not. But I'd prefer a nonmaintained but good project over a maintained but poor project, or over a project maintained in the manner that Mozilla "maintains" Firefox.
He said it works, not that it's perfect. I think that he's right. Thunderbird is probably one of the five best mailreaders out there right now. Given Mozilla's track record over the past few years, leaving it alone is the best thing that they could do.
I wouldn't recommend running a webmail front end at all, except for certain narrow use cases. Better is to run an IMAP server and use a mailreader to connect to it.
Thunderbird needs to bite the bullet and be come a full PIM... yes like Outlook.
Oh, please, no! I can't think of many ways to ruin Thunderbird more quickly than doing that.
When do you ever JUST need e-mail. Just being an e-mail client is too limiting. E-mail, calendaring, tasks, contacts are so closely connecting nowadays.
It depends on your needs. When I need to use email, I do not need all that other stuff at all -- and there's a huge number of people with exactly the same use case as me. Your use case is different. Both are valid, but it would be a shame if one of the handful of good mailreaders left in the world was destroyed by turning it into a full-featured PIM.
You make a logical argument, but it's undermined by the fact that the Android version of Firefox is truly awful -- much worse than the desktop version, even. So all of their tradeoffs and the worsening of the desktop browser is not gaining them anything in the mobile space.
I agree with the sentiment, although for reasons that probably differ from Mozilla's. Mozilla has been mismanaging and making Firefox an increasingly undesirable browser. That Mozilla has pretty much been ignoring Thunderbird has meant that it has escaped much of the awfulness they have been inflicting on Firefox.
Formally making the two completely independent would be welcome to me because it would further insulate Thunderbird from the actions of Mozilla.
There's a reason why I avoid Chrome OS (specifically, that it depends on the cloud), and my fear is that in merging it with Android, it may make Android unacceptable to me as well.
This happens no matter how secure Windows 10 is. If you're giving information to any business whatsoever, it is almost guaranteed that information is being shared or sold to others. That's been the case for many years now.
Slashdot Mirror
What Guy believes, how informed he is, how offensive what he did is, or how big of a douchebag he may be is all 100% irrelevant to whether or not what he did is a trademark violation. It seems screamingly obvious to me that this is not such a violation. I can't see how there is any way that people will think that the Sanders campaign produced this, or that there is any risk of dilution.
This is about whether or not the Sanders campaign is going to engage in the abuse of a law to suppress someone saying something they hate. How Sanders handles this is going to mean a lot.
Not "all" of them agree.
I'm unaware of any that disagree. But I want to be very clear, I'm talking about courts saying that moderating in and of itself does not invalidate safe harbors. If you know of a court that said otherwise, I'd be very interested in that.
However, there have been a couple of cases where safe harbor has been invalidated and moderating was a part of why -- but it wasn't the moderating itself was the issue. It was the moderation in combination with other activities that did.
This sort of case has been made in a few courts now, and so far they all agree that just filtering user content does not invalidate the safe harbor protections.
No.
Discrimination is entirely legal in the US, as long as it isn't based on one of the things in the short list (age, race, religion, gender, etc.). The legal argument in the bakery case is one of whether or not sexual orientation is in the list. Political orientation is certainly not in the list. I'm glossing over lots of edge conditions, of course. Also, I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with how the law works on this, only that this is how the law works.
All of the years of watching how Facebook operates has taught me that Facebook cannot be trusted or believed about anything. Particularly when they make a promise.
As if MS has not changed in 20 years.
I have seen nothing to indicate that they have.
I hope against hope that this doesn't mean that Eclipse will start to resemble Visual Studio.
I see an opportunity to seize the Android device market here, a much needed Google free, privacy focussed handset.
You can have Google-free Android right now for a spyless experience. It's not even that hard.
Android apps are really Java apps with lots of gui customizations. It's all the gui and OS specific calls that make translation difficult.
Not all Android apps are Java apps. Many are written in a compiled language (usually C++), although they are a minority because they are not platform agnostic, so tend to be ones that require high performance or determinacy.
Technically, money that is given to Mozilla Foundation does not go into development at all. That's the arm of Mozilla that engages in public awareness, lobbying, etc.
I agree with you, though. My interpretation of what Mozilla is saying here is that they agree with you as well. They are not dropping Thunderbird unceremoniously, they are looking for a good group to hand the reigns over to. Even if that doesn't happen, though, Thunderbird is being maintained by an outside group in the form of FossaMail (there are other TBird forks that are under active development too -- some commercial, some not -- but FossaMail seems to get the most positive comments).
Mozilla, you already won the browser wars. There's a lot of other work to do.
They did win the browser wars, only to have turned that victory into a defeat. Firefox is now the fourth most popular browser, with 11% of the "browser market" (and its popularity continues to slide). It's less popular than Safari.
I used KMail for a while, but switched back to Thunderbird because KMail's IMAP support is disastrous.
Of course not. But I'd prefer a nonmaintained but good project over a maintained but poor project, or over a project maintained in the manner that Mozilla "maintains" Firefox.
He said it works, not that it's perfect. I think that he's right. Thunderbird is probably one of the five best mailreaders out there right now. Given Mozilla's track record over the past few years, leaving it alone is the best thing that they could do.
I wouldn't recommend running a webmail front end at all, except for certain narrow use cases. Better is to run an IMAP server and use a mailreader to connect to it.
Thunderbird needs to bite the bullet and be come a full PIM... yes like Outlook.
Oh, please, no! I can't think of many ways to ruin Thunderbird more quickly than doing that.
When do you ever JUST need e-mail. Just being an e-mail client is too limiting. E-mail, calendaring, tasks, contacts are so closely connecting nowadays.
It depends on your needs. When I need to use email, I do not need all that other stuff at all -- and there's a huge number of people with exactly the same use case as me. Your use case is different. Both are valid, but it would be a shame if one of the handful of good mailreaders left in the world was destroyed by turning it into a full-featured PIM.
Out of curiosity, does anyone really use the built in pdf-reader, chat, bookmark sync spyware or the social media buttons Firefox has recently added?
I don't. Exactly none of the new features that have been added to Firefox over the past few years have any value to me.
You make a logical argument, but it's undermined by the fact that the Android version of Firefox is truly awful -- much worse than the desktop version, even. So all of their tradeoffs and the worsening of the desktop browser is not gaining them anything in the mobile space.
That's funny -- I only know a single person who uses gmail.
Every single web based mail system I've ever tried has sucked mightily.
I like Thunderbird. It's not the best mailreader I've ever used, but it's the best I've found for my current use case.
That would be the equivalent of just killing Thunderbird outright for me. There's no way an HTML/Javascript implementation could be nearly as good.
I agree with the sentiment, although for reasons that probably differ from Mozilla's. Mozilla has been mismanaging and making Firefox an increasingly undesirable browser. That Mozilla has pretty much been ignoring Thunderbird has meant that it has escaped much of the awfulness they have been inflicting on Firefox.
Formally making the two completely independent would be welcome to me because it would further insulate Thunderbird from the actions of Mozilla.
There's a reason why I avoid Chrome OS (specifically, that it depends on the cloud), and my fear is that in merging it with Android, it may make Android unacceptable to me as well.
This happens no matter how secure Windows 10 is. If you're giving information to any business whatsoever, it is almost guaranteed that information is being shared or sold to others. That's been the case for many years now.