I do believe that it would be norm in near future.
You can store photo and video for some time (for legal purposes mostly) but after that you would need to either obtain consent of everyone on them, remove the photo or edit it (replace real people with computer generated ones).
The tech for the latter is basically already here.
How would that even work? My Flickr account has pictures of probably 10s of thousands of people with various degrees of identifiability. If someone really wants their photo deleted and they ask me nicely, I might very well do so. But I'm not going to delete my photos from public-facing sites just because there are people in them.
Humans wants religion, humans need religion, a lot of humans can't survive without religion.
All those reports about religion decline in the world look misleading.
It is just Christian God fell out of favor and a lot of people choose to worship Holy Technological Progress.
You can easily recognize worshipers of his two main sects in threads like this.
First one claims that you don't need to worry about Climate Change, Super AI, Antibiotic Resistance Pathogens etc because Holy Progress would protect humanity from any threat. It is benevolent God who didn't let us down this far.
Second one claims that sacrificing yourself, your loved ones and the rest of humanity on the altar of Holy Progress is actually worthy goal. Because that is what they believe their God wants.
As a person who chooses Mint MATE everywhere I have that option: no, I don't have this bullshit complaints. The whole point of OS is to let user start his favorite programs and get out of the way. That is what MATE get right and most other systems get wrong.
I also don't see any real problems with icons or fonts or anything but maybe it's just because I adapted to them. Without hardware problems overall experience with MATE is far superior than with Windows or Mac OS.
> Most times I bring [Open Source Definition] up, my conversation partner has never heard of it.
That really doesn't matter. All they know about open source is based on this definition. There millions of articles about open source on the internet that use it. You are trying to invalidate all of them for no good reason. As a consequence every opinion about open source they ever read prior to your efforts would be outdated. Most people understand danger of these actions which leads to behavior you described as "bullying".
> All they know about open source is based on this definition.
The Open Source Definition says nothing about source control, patch submission, bug tracking, releases, versioning, dependencies, package repositories, continuous integration, test coverage, style guides, codes of conduct, and so on. There are also articles on the Internet that talk about a "post-Open Source" GitHub generation, and articles that affirmatively reject definitions of open source in terms of license conditions, rather than community. OSI has been controversial since inception, and there's plenty about that, too.
If the OSD were merely a descriptive framework, that would be one thing. "Here is a class of licenses we can describe, and here are benefits we can correlate with them." But OSD gets used far beyond that. It's used prescriptively. It's used to sanction. Those are social functions of a movement, and the crux of a movement is participation, not definition. It matters that people making open source haven't heard of OSD, because they neither participated in its adoption nor consented to its authority. It has no sway over them. The idea that a mailing list could define their community rankles.
I don't consider debate about OSD, DFSG, or "What is free software?" bullying. I do consider peer pressure on maintainers to adopt terms that don't advance their goals, against their stated interests, bullying. I consider unfounded legal FUD to the same effect bullying. Have a look at the Lerna GitHub issues, or Twitter conversation about Commons Clause.
> The Open Source Definition says nothing about [very long list]
There is nothing in your list that is different for open-source and proprietary software development. You could as well add countless articles about OOP and functional programming because they mention some open-source tools.
OSD is about answering three simple questions. Should I use some program or library? Should I contribute to its development? Should I release my new program or lib as open-source? OSD makes process of choosing the answer fairly simple and helps developer avoiding all weird legal stuff. He doesn't need to know OSD and read full texts of licenses as long as he uses most adopted like MTI, BSD, GPL. Descriptions of pros and cons of every one of them in layman terms are available on the internet. It's hard to say the same for the ill-conceived licenses you mentioned.
I can't sell some project based on Lerna to [list of companies] ? OK. How am I supposed to check that the company didn't change name? What if I am selling my work to subcontractor? I would probably have to include this list in every contract. What if every open-source project started banning some arbitrary list of companies? Am I supposed to review the last commit to license every time to make sure that my company wasn't included? All that looks, sounds and smells like a lot of headache and any reasonable person would drop the project with first sign of it.
Commons Clause was even worse. It was advertised as "MTI+CC", but nobody would be able to figure out what "CC" part meant for them without a lawyer. And any lawyer would advise to find something else.
> There is nothing in your list that is different for open-source and proprietary software development.
That's not right, even assuming full "Innersource".
My point was that OSD is a set of criteria for licenses, plus a source-availability requirement. Those criteria don't predetermine all the practices that make up open source development right now. Those practices have changed! The OSD largely hasn't.
> OSD makes process of choosing the answer fairly simple and helps developer avoiding all weird legal stuff.
If you've managed to avoid all weird legal stuff so far, I'm glad for you. A good portion of my legal career is addressing weird legal stuff, which crops up even with MIT, BSD, and GPL, to use your list. The GPLs and other copyleft licenses are chock full of weird legal stuff.
> Descriptions of pros and cons of every one of them in layman terms are available on the internet. It's hard to say the same for the ill-conceived licenses you mentioned.
I wrote one of the more popular guides to MIT in layman's terms:
The License Zero licenses are far easier to read, besides. That was part of the point of writing them from scratch.
> What if every open-source project started banning some arbitrary list of companies?
Highly unlikely. And that is not the approach of the License Zero licenses, React, Commons Clause, or most others that I mention.
If somehow this did become popular---again, very hypothetical---I'd go into npm and RubyGems and other package managers, and propose a package metadata field for excluded entities, and perhaps standardized categorical exclusions. This still sounds inconvenient, and I agree that it would be. But to give you a sense of near current practice, some large companies prohibit use of open source from specific competitors, even under permissive licenses, especially when the patent terms of the license are weak or nonexistent. That would include MIT, BSD, and GPLv2.
> And any lawyer would advise to find something else.
Or do a deal with Redis Labs. Which was the point, I think.
Thank you! Amount of insane comments here is deeply disturbing.
Deceased person could have "secret" lover whom he was going to marry. He could have secret son who had more right to decide what to do with the page than anyone else.
He wasn't married to person who harassed Facebook. He could have relations with dozen other women all of whom asked fb to erase all history of it including messages and photos. Grieving person might try to demand restoring profile and giving her access to it so she could identify them and make their life living hell. Yes this might sound farfetched and a little bit insane but stories like this really happen all over the globe thousands time a day.
Its easy to agree with fb here especially because "widow" couldn't possibly do anything good with requested information.
Did ever look how spam filtering or search results ranking algorithms work? They work exactly because companies keep their policies secret. Transparent policies would get abused instantly.
Facebook processes might change every month to react on actions of billion users. What good disclosing it could ever make? You could see examples of abuse of Facebook policy in other comments here.
Can this "Autopilot" control altitude of the vehicle? No. Therefor it's not the same thing, it is just something similar.
What should we call car autopilot? There is more than one opinion. Some people believe in importance of some weird technical characteristics. For most people defining property of autopilot is its ability to control vehicle while pilot left the cockpit for a few minutes. So to them car autopilot must safely drive some roads and require human to take full control on the others. Taking over in case of emergency doesn't exactly fit this idea.
What looks really weird in all this discussions is their fanatical uselessness. Who would be hurt if new law would prohibit to call autopilot anything less than L5? Well probably no one. Who would benefit? Most likely a lot of people. Why would anyone oppose regulation like this? Huge question.
... and for bed bugs, and for fleas, and also for basically every insect that feeds on mammal blood. They are important vectors of transmitting a whole lot of diseases, some of which already dangerous to humans while others could easily mutate to become ones. We are already eradicating a lot of species. May as well exterminate bad ones. There are no ethical problems because no sane person feels bad about killing ticks. These species probably don't have any important ecological role (well maybe they speed up evolution a little bit, but in that case screw evolution). And in case anything goes wrong repopulating the whole globe with them would take no time.
I agree. I would not mourn if ticks were eradicated.
Off the top of my head the only ecological role I can think of for them is as food for tick-eating birds. But I don't think there are any birds that subsist exclusively on ticks, so they'd probably be all right.
And for our general literacy, I want to point out that ticks are arachnids, not insects.
Well all these species probably has role in horizontal gene transfer. They also help keeping animal population from growing too big. However it is very unlikely that any of this factors has any global effect. Some areas of the world don't have mosquitoes or ticks, in others they were eradicated with DDT and other chemicals. Observed negative consequences didn't have anything to do with eliminated targets.
It's possible that in some local areas some animals would be severely affected. But even in that case climate change already changing natural balance. For example ticks are almost culling deers. It is better to find new equilibrium while humanity still can have some control over the ecosystem.
