> Unlike Firefox on Android, Firefox for iOS does not support browser add-ons. Additionally, it uses Apple's Webkit rendering engine, rather than Mozilla's Gecko. Both of these limitations are in accordance with Apple's rules for submitting apps to the App Store.
Calling them skins is not correct at all. Being able to auto translate whole pages or sync all bookmarks and browsing history or passwords in iOS chrome
is not merely a skin.
That takes some level of hypocrisy - you are not making your Atlas as opensource, but you require others to do so.
This clearly indicates that you are using an opensource license as an extortion schema against competitors.
It absolutely does not make them hypocritical. They own the copyright and can do as they choose. They simply don't want other companies getting rich on their back by simply offering a MongoDB SaaS. Why is it OK for AWS to just take a project and start making millions off of it while the people who invested in the project get nothing? AWS and similar cloud companies are simply trying to strip mine all the value from some popular open source projects and contribute nothing back. Most of these cloud companies show zero interest in partnering with the copyright owners so now we're seeing copyright owners take a stand against this exploitation.
There's a big difference between a piece of free software being vital to your codebase and you simply selling that free software as-a-service.
> IANAL but I don't see how it satisfies part 9 of the OSI Definition, or the DFSG. As DannyBee already mentioned, it's also incompatible with other existing open-source licenses. Why do they want to continue calling it "open source"? It sounds like they really just want to be a proprietary database.
They want to charge money and have control as a proprietary database. But they want to keep a label "open source" purely for marketing purposes.
FTA: “What you may not realize, though, is 76 percent of websites now contain hidden Google trackers, and 24 percent have hidden Facebook trackers, according to the Princeton Web Transparency & Accountability Project. The next highest is Twitter with 12 percent.”
Article postscript: “Commentary by Gabriel Weinberg, CEO and founder of DuckDuckGo, which makes online privacy tools, including an alternative search engine to Google. Follow him on Twitter @yegg .
For more insight from CNBC contributors, follow @CNBCopinion on Twitter.”
ublock didn't block anything. Then I realised that this site allows auto-playing videos so at some point in the past I seem to have disabled JavaScript on this site.
I wish it was easier to control JavaScript usage as the visitor. It's either very complex or just 'turn it all off and go somewhere else if nothing works'.
Perhaps the second option is the 'correct' response though.
If you're using Firefox and you want to keep JavaScript enabled but stop auto-playing videos, you can go into about:config and set media.autoplay.enabled to false. I'm not sure if other browsers have a similar switch, but this works in any current version of Firefox. It only affects HTML5 video containers; Flash and Silverlight video containers may still auto-play.
I do this, but also be prepared for video you expect to play to no work as expected. For instance, a video might appear to be frozen or "loading" until you click on it.
