3 ms·
> It's a bold move to attack the main contributor of the opensource project upon which your business is based... Is it? Part of the point of open source is th
by JadeNB 7y ago
> It's a bold move to attack the main contributor of the opensource project upon which your business is based...
Is it? Part of the point of open source is that you're not beholden to any individual contributor. They can't be cut out from existing code; I don't know if they try to roll in future code developments, but, if they do, then Google can't keep them out of those, either, without a license change.
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago> Part of the point of open source is that you're not beholden to any individual contributor. I am skeptical of this being the case with Google's idea of "open source"; does anyone other than Google actually have any material say in any of its projects? Or is it like Apple's open source: code dumps with no path to upstream?
- jiveturkey 7y agoSure, it isn't open source in that way. But another important part is that the code is there, relatively freely (depending on license), for others to use as they will. In the sense that the parent meant his comment, this is the critical component of open source that matters. To put it in classic terms: don't bite the hand that feeds you.
- londons_explore 7y agoChromium has a pretty open leadership process. Each subsystem has a small number of people who make technical decisions about the roadmap, and for some subsystems of the browser, none of those people are Google employees. Qualcomm, Microsoft, and Nvidia all have direct leadership control over some Chromium subsystems.
- londons_explore 7y agoIf Google wanted to be aggressive about it, they could make future features closed source, and Brave wouldn't have the financial ability to pay people to keep up with new standards.