I do wish this was under the GPLv3 but you can’t have it all
I’d love to hear your thoughts on why you feel the GPLv3 is better than the BSD2-clause license LadyBird is using.
GPLv3 is virally open source (copyleft), BSD 2-Clause is not.
GPLv3 ensures free software remains free and contributions cannot be exploited and withheld from the community. BSD2C does not.
GPLv3 is virally open source (copyleft), BSD 2-Clause is not.
Your first statement is patently false and misleading.
Two variants of the license, the New BSD License/Modified BSD License (3-clause), and the Simplified BSD License/FreeBSD License (2-clause) have been verified as GPL-compatible free software licenses by the Free Software Foundation, and have been vetted as open source licenses by the Open Source Initiative. (Wikipedia)
Being “copyleft” is not a requirement for being open source. Maybe you’re thinking of free software. There are differences, but as the FSF is quoted, they are also very similar.
GPLv3 ensures free software remains free and contributions cannot be exploited and withheld from the community. BSD2C does not.
To my understanding, and if I’m wrong I’d love to know why, both GPLv3 and BSD2 both ensure the openness of software. They just go about it differently. GPL (I’m not super versed at v3) basically means any modifications to GPL’d code must also be GPL’d, and source made available; also, if you statically link against other GPL’d code, your code must be GPL’d. Dynamic linking (or linking against LGPL code, like glibc) does not have this requirement.
With BSD code, your only requirement is that the code (or binaries) must remain BSD2. Sure, someone can make modifications and keep them to themselves for fun and profit. But that doesn’t mean the rest of the community has to follow suit. The original code remains open and available with no license modifications. If a company owns BSD2 code, and goes under, the community can simply fork the code and take ownership as they please.
Neither license is perfect, and I’m sure we could find plenty of examples of people/companies that have abused both licenses.
GPLv3 makes a company publish the source under the same license. That means no Vivaldi, Chrome, Edge or any other spyware ad ridden browsers. I don’t think we need more lock in.
I’m normally in the camp that copyleft prevents enterprise adoption, and therefore limits users/contributors… but in this case I agree. I’d like browsers to be copyleft. I’d like to be able to see what kind of sketchy shit Edge and Chrome are throwing on top of Chromium and have it out in the open.
Question for the free software community…
If I used a headless version of a copyleft browser as part of an automated testing suite for proprietary enterprise software, does that violate the copyleft license?
I mean… considering that firefox is still kind of a clusterfuck for a surprising number of websites…
I am glad this exists but I see no practical use for it for… anyone. And the cynic in me thinks this will be even more ammunition for “just use chromium, it actually works” akin to the crowd who insist on telling every single person who is considering trying out linux to use arch or gentoo.
I think either this will die soon or more likely it will be noticed my companies that have been screwed by Google. Google has made lots of unpopular choices with Chromium and I wouldn’t be surprised if at least a few companies started funding it in hopes that it might be viable in 5 years. It took a long time to create Chromium.
First Servo, now this. Good times ahead.
Looks like it has a reasonable base. But they are targeting an alpha for early 26?
Oof.
Hey it looks like there is some thought behind this; starting a 501c3 and going from there.
Deep sigh…. Good luck Mr Gorkski
It takes time to start from the ground up. There are a huge amount of web standards and to do it right takes time. It took a long time from Chromium to become usable.
Randomly stumbled upon this community, pretty cool!
