False equivalence. Beyond Meat's burgers are carefully synthesized in a food lab. Apples have been around for millions of years (excluding the GMO part).
This is a pretty gross generalisation of the people and issues at stake. "We" the individual freedom loving, contributors. "They", the rogue nations using open source software to oppress and enslave.
Honestly it boggles my mind how easily you slipped into that mentality in response to the comment you replied to - a comment describing people caught in the crossfire, affected by the choices of nations at war, individual liberties crushed by sanctions and foreign policy.
If an individual feels wrongly and disproportionately impacted by US sanctions they can apply to the SEC for a waiver. A small, lonely dev will probably be ok.
But the issue isn't with one dev who gets caught in the crossfire. You want to stop fighting a blazing inferno to mount a rescue operation because there's one kitten in the burning apartment building.
Individual liberties cannot be realized without sanctions and foreign policy. Do you think if Github were located in Tehran that Americans would be able to post a commit right now?
> If an individual feels wrongly and disproportionately impacted by US sanctions they can apply to the SEC for a waiver. A small, lonely dev will probably be ok.
And github & Co will then invest money to not blanket-ban, but make exceptions for this individual? I have some doubts.
Do you believe that Iran's cyber warriors or their critical infrastructure people host their code on github? Because if not, you're not "fighting" the government, you're fighting individual developers.
> Do you think if Github were located in Tehran that Americans would be able to post a commit right now?
I find that a very problematic worldview, as it gives you permission to do anything. There are no limits, because "what if the table were turned? I'm doing it to them, so clearly they'd do it to me, right? So you see, I must do it to them first".
> And github & Co will then invest money to not blanket-ban, but make exceptions for this individual? I have some doubts.
I don't see why not. It's probably a simple boolean value in their database somewhere. If they can blanket ban, they can probably be selective for a minimal cost.
> Do you believe that Iran's cyber warriors or their critical infrastructure people host their code on github?
It wouldn't surprise me one bit if they did. People put weird stuff on GH for all kinds of weird reasons. Every week we hear about an unsecured AWS bucket from some huge mega-corp or state actor who should know better. But they are all run by humans who are free to make mistakes and break rules.
> I find that a very problematic worldview, as it gives you permission to do anything.
Being the most powerful and influential player in technology gives us permission to do anything. Having (one of) the largest tech markets and the (nearly) unlimited resources to spend makes us able to do whatever we want. And if we want to keep it that way we will ensure that we don't let unfriendly nations take advantage of our technology. We developed encryption to protect our banking sector. Just because we're nice enough to open-source it doesn't give Tehran officials the freedom to use it to suppress their entire nation. If authoritarianism worked so well they would be on top of the world with all their proprietary technology and censored information. But they're not. So either you're going to play nice with our toys in the sandbox or we're taking our ball and going home.
> Being the most powerful and influential player in technology gives us permission to do anything.
Read this again, slowly. You're advocating for the law of the jungle where the actor with the biggest club has the right (and, I presume, duty?) to do whatever they please to whomever they please whenever they please.
> Individual liberties cannot be realized without sanctions and foreign policy.
What kind of jingo non-sense is that?
We now have over a century of data on how effective US foreign policy is at promoting democracy around the world and if you read the history even badly, you can't help but notice that it's much better at killing people in monstrous numbers than at promoting individual liberty.
> Individual liberties cannot be realized without sanctions and foreign policy.
[Citation needed]. It is not as if sanctions have a stellar record when it comes to promoting individual liberties. Rather the opposite - they entrench the powers that be and give them an opponent that are not themselves that they can blame the hardship of the people on.
Has "unlisted" ever been known to mean "private"? I never assumed it was - rather it was just a video that would not appear in searches or recommendations on YouTube.
That all depends entirely on whether the "fix" is white-listing the two responders somehow, or flagging the larger issue to the correct team and figuring something more general out.
IA's definition of CDL and yours (by proxy of the NWU faq you linked) seem quite different.
IA contends that the CDL program lends one digital copy per physical copy the lender owns (ie. the “owned to loaned” ratio). Which is in direct contradiction to the copies-of-copies described by the NWU.
AIUI, the NWU faq explains that even after a loaned copy is marked as "returned", the page images are present on the borrower's computer (at least in the browser cache). So there's not a 1:1 owned to loaned ratio: each "loan" effectively creates a new digital copy, which the borrower might retain indefinitely.
This seems like a bit of a cop out. You could borrow a normal book from a library and photocopy it as well. It seems like IA is doing everything they can to try not to exceed the 1:1 loan ratio.
I've been recently working on a project in digital book distribution for libraries, and the terms that publishers want to force on libraries for digital distribution are pretty harsh and enforced by DRM by the publisher. Things like you can only loan this book 50 times before renewing its license.
IMO thats what this is really about, trying to undermine the clever work around of digitizing physical works and loaning them like a normal library would so that is can be replaced with a more revenue friendly model where publishers can dictate terms using DRM.
> You could borrow a normal book from a library and photocopy it as well.
Or, more realistically, you could borrow an audiobook or CD and copy it perfectly - but people don't seem to be overly opposed to allowing libraries to lend those out.
As someone who went to college and regularly saw professors checking out textbooks from the college library and photocopying questions/articles to distribute to their classes, the physical model doesn't seem like it actually offers many protections here.
IIRC fair use may cover that if it's only small portions of a work or significantly transformative, and not for profit. There was also an exemption from the DMCA for educators in recent years that may be relevant.
Alpha-Linolenic-Acid, Asparagine, D-Categin, Isoqurctrin, Hyperoside, Ferulic-Acid, Farnesene, Neoxathin, Phosphatidyl-Choline, Reynoutrin, Sinapic-Acid, Caffeic-Acid, Chlorogenic-Acid, P-Hydroxy-Benzoic-Acid, P-Coumaric-Acid, Avicularin, Lutein, Quercitin, Rutin, Ursolic-Acid, Protocatechuic-Acid, Silver, Vitamin A, B1, B2, and B6, Niacin, Pantothenic acid, Folic acid, Vitamin C and Vitamin E, Calcium, Copper, Iron, Magnesium, Manganese, Phosphorus, Pottassium, Selenium, Sodium, and Zinc. Lipids, saturated, unsaturated and monounsaturated fats, Tryptophan, Threonine, Isoleucine, Leucine, Lycine, Methionine, Cystine, Phenylalanine, Tyrosine, Valine, Argenine, Histidine, Alanine, Aspartic Acid, Glutamic Acid, Glycine, Proline, and Serine. Trace amounts of Boron and Cobalt. Soluble and insoluble fiber (cellulose, pectin and lignin). Sugars of fructose and sucrose. Malic, tartaric, and citric acids. Tannins, Amygdaline, Cyanide.