How would the gift make sure Bose never faced a hostile takeover? I believe that the given shares are non-voting, so they shouldn't help or hinder a takeover.
Not the gift, but the way the gift is structured. MIT can't sell it another entity, and even if they could, non-voting shares mean they can't be used to strongarm Bose.
Hostiles are already quite rare for public companies, never mind a private one like Bose. Disgruntled equity shareholders can more easily coordinate to change management, and it's much harder for hostile purchasers to get enough information to price a bid.
You cannot seriously argue that Rosa Parks "shouldn't be propped up on shoulders" because she instigated the first event in a series of coordinated events that stopped the buses in Montgomery County. She was not a bad person. She made a stand against racial segregation, something we now all acknowledge as unjust.
I'm really quite curious why Google is still investing time into wave. It seems to me that either it is a worthy endeavor (which I think it is), or it isn't (ie, it should be scraped). But I don't understand scraping it and then revitalizing it soon after. Couldn't they have done the work the Apache Foundation will do faster in-house?
How can you "scrap" code? They certainly haven't deleted it, and just because they have stopped active development doesn't prevent them handing it all off to the Apache crew.
If you release on Thursday and there are problems, you can always fix them on Friday. If you try and release on Friday, any problem will make for an unhappy releaser.
