Here you go, the source for it, found in five seconds on Google:

http://www.opensource.apple.co...

You could have checked yourself if what you were going to say was actually true, but I guess that just wasn't a priority.

They actually created clang from scratch and open-sourced it.

Apple has deprecated OpenSSL on OS X a long time ago, and provide their own replacements.

Or show up on someone else's doorstep. Close enough, right?

That definition seems to exclude anyone who paints on a canvas to hang in a gallery too.

Pretty much all art is made for others to look at. How you do that varies. Painting it on the side of a building is just one of many ways, that happens to be illegal most of the time. But legality has nothing to do with art.

Of course there are:

http://www.drop-dropbox.com/

I'm just going to sit here and wait for everyone who spoke up in defense of Eich to now defend Rice, too.

I'm sure they'll be here any minute now.

Some idle speculation has finally been confirmed.

Not really. There was no particular reason to think this was impossible. We just didn't have any evidence it was possible.

Not to any useful theories. Theories like the Electric Universe have one more thing added to the list of things they can't explain, but that's no surprise. :)

That's a fair point, and if he really wanted to sue Mozilla, I'd expect that would be his most plausible angle to try to exploit. However, A) I don't think he wants to sue Mozilla, which makes the whole question somewhat moot, and B) he's still primarily a techy, not a professional CEO, which might well have made a more tech-oriented position attractive to him if the issue had actually come up before he resigned.

If you support trying to hurt (a set of) people, you shouldn't be surprised if those people (and their friends) start to dislike you and act accordingly.

What alternative do you offer? Forcing people to buy bread from the bigotted baker at gunpoint? Or forcing people to keep using Mozilla even though it's represented by a man who tried to take away their rights?

It would be nice if the world could be broken down into nice, neat piles of black and white, good and evil, but the real world is inevitably more complicated than that, and pretending otherwise is not useful or productive.

I notice you carefully avoided answering my original question, though. Is that because you didn't understand it, or because you couldn't?

If it was a serious offer, and the company could show that was the position he was best suited for, then no. Otherwise, it would clearly be a ruse to try to force him out, and the law actually takes such things into account. (Which makes your suggestion a straw man.)

A serious offer, for a job that would suit his skills would easily defeat any claims of unlawful termination. A insult obviously intended to pressure him into quitting might not. If you can't figure out the difference between the two, then I recommend you stay away from any job that involves interactions with the law, or the public.

The key word there is "lead". Show me where it said he should leave the company, rather than merely take a different role within the company, and I might concede you have a point. But if mere employment is equivalent to leading, then my employers are going to be in for some big surprises tomorrow! :)

How did he attempt to limit the rights of others?

Duh, by attempting to take away the rights of people. (Same-sex marriage was legal in California at the time.) I don't know how much more obvious it could be. The fact that he has the right to say it doesn't mean he wasn't attempting to limit the rights of others.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from all consequences. If your local baker were campaigning to repeal the 19th amendment, would you argue that women (or people who like women) who refuse to buy his products are infringing his rights somehow? If so, you have one of the stupidest definitions of "I'll defend to the death your right to say it" I've ever heard.

Did you even read the summery: "'It's clear that Brendan cannot lead Mozilla in this setting,' Baker was quoted as saying."

Did you even read it? It says "lead", not "work for". To win a suit, he'd have to prove that no other openings would have been available to him in the company. And this is a man who was valued primarily for his technical skills (as the developer of Javascript), and who was promoted from within, so I think that would be quite a stretch.

Because as we all know, HN users are experts at meteorites. They are also not at all interested in trying to convince people of how smart they are by calling others wrong.