Yeah, Concord grapes are based on Fox grapes; when the new Welch's headquarters opened on Baker Ave they included a plantation started from cuttings from the original farm (which is just a house now but they still maintain their own grapes.) Welch's downsized and moved the HQ to Waltham last year, apparently the vines got distributed to local historic places and farmers https://concordbridge.org/index.php/2026/04/06/the-grape-esc...
The heksher marks and logos offered by kosher-certification organizations are protected by trademark; using the trademark under license specifically assures the customer that the organization's standards have been followed precisely, and using the trademark without license defeats the purpose.
Similarly, the American Halal Foundation, the USDA Organic seal, the UL logo and many other programs use the mechanism of trademark to guarantee that the product or service meets their standards.
That's the licensing agreement between the owner and the trademarks, and their customers for the use of the trademark.
But the American Halal Foundation could revise their definition of what counts as Halal, and then license the brand to a company that doesn't meet the current criteria, without asking for permission from anyone.
It's in your wording already: “the customer that the organization's standards have been followed precisely” (emphasis mine), nothing prevents the organization from changing their standards (well, maybe the licensing agreement with their customer brands does, but that's purely a contract thing and has nothing to to with the trademark per se).
Sure. But the same way it would be disingenuous to say that copyright exists so that we can have copyleft, it's a fallacy to say that trademark exist to protect the consumer, which is the point I'm arguing against:
> The core reason to enforce trademarks is not to fluff the corporation that holds it but to let the public be confident in the name.
It definitely was. There were at least sometimes extenuating circumstances though.
My sense is that in the US and Canada settlers found a great deal of "apparently" uninhabited land, largely a result of the diseases that had swept through because of earlier contact, decimating the existing population.
My guess is that had disease not done its work, the European settlers would have found it much harder to displace the existing inhabitants.
I have yet to read 1491, but yes I imagine that it would have been much more challenging without that first strike. But the weapons capabilities of the europeans were also going to make it happen one way or another.
I like Heliboard a lot, but its autocorrect gets stuck in the mud all the time.
It completely falls apart and starts injecting nonsense phrases made up of nonsense misspelled words moment you miss a space ('v' or 'b') or type a really long word it doesn't know.
It also stubbornly incorrects other things like 'a' into "and" if it thinks it knows a phrase fragment. It's always wrong. It just happened to me now twice. Above, "or type a" became "or type and". Also, "it's" became "IRS".
Heliboard would be perfect if it stuck to word-only spellcheck and never split words. Just now again, it tried correcting "heliboard" into "hellenized" and "he lib oars".
This is not a matter of just lowering how aggressive the spellcheck is. It will still generate slop every time. The only real option is to completely turn it off. Futo can have similar problems, but there are a lot more options to tweak and the defaults aren't so bad.
Unsure what you mean by link against it. GPLv3 requires making the entire project it is bundled with GPLv3 as well. GrapheneOS would need to relicense the entire OS and bundled apps as GPLv3 to allow them to use any app with that license.
Go read the GPLv3 license and/or ask yourself how Linux distributions are able to ship a mix of GPLv3, v2, MIT, BSD, etc licensed software all in the same image.
GrapheneOS may or may not have a policy against shipping GPLv3 software (I don't know), but if they do, it's a political or business decision, not a restriction imposed by GPLv3.
They mean linking as in [1] against a GPLv3 work to create a derived work. Simply including a GPLv3 application in a aggregation of different works (e.g. an OS image) does not require everything else to be GPLv3.
The GPLv3 only applies to a work and works derived from it, so either if you take an existing GPLv3 project and modify it or if you link against a GPLv3 project. In these cases, the other code needs to be under licenses that are compatible with the GPLv3.
This is clearly described in the GPLv3:
A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work,
and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program,
in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
"aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not
used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users
beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work
in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other
parts of the aggregate.
Android 17 is required for full Android security updates. Only a subset of patches are backported to older versions and that's decreasing. Android 17 is also required for the latest and greatest privacy/security protections which are not backported. There have been massive privacy and security improvements in each yearly Android release. There have also been far more improvements than those. Being unaware of it doesn't mean it hasn't been done.
Minimum Target SDK is the opposite of user hostile. Privacy and security changes are added to the SDK consistently. Apps that fail to comply with that SDK are much more of a privacy risk.
Feel free to look at the AOSP SDK changes for each major version that's released and you will see many of these examples.
Apps that failed to keep up with these changes, regardless of licensing, should be avoided and ultimately removed from availability.
The deprecation of 32-bit apps is another example of this.
reply