4 ms·

> It’s hard to believe that it’s already been three years since we launched our open source web browser, Chrome. Chrome is not open source: It contains plenty

by azakai 15y ago

> It’s hard to believe that it’s already been three years since we launched our open source web browser, Chrome. Chrome is not open source: It contains plenty of closed-source code, from Flash to the print preview implementation. And it isn't just that they wrote "Chrome" instead of "Chromium" in that post - they tout the closed-source features of the browser later down. So it's clear they mean Chrome, not Chromium. I realize this is not news for anyone here on hacker news, but it is disappointing to see Google making this kind of inaccuracy. You can't have your cake and eat it too: If you want to be fully open source you can't include closed-source code, and if you want to include closed-source code you can't call yourself open source. I'm not saying one is good and one is bad, just that you can't do one and call yourself the other.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
mkr-hn 15y ago
edit: I just realized that I got trolled. Sorry about the mess. You can safely page down past this tree without missing any valuable conversation. Can you list the things that are part of Chrome and not a separate blob? As far as I know the closed stuff is separate from the executable. Unless you believe shipping an open source product with closed source blobs makes it closed source. Which would be weird.
- azakai 15y ago
  As I mentioned, Flash is bundled and is closed source, and the print preview functionality as well. There is also the closed-source PDF viewer (which is related to the print preview functionality in some way). And some audio codecs are present in Chrome but not Chromium, but I do not know if they are closed source or not (perhaps they are missing for other reasons). Those are the main things we know about. The bigger issue, though, is that by definition a closed-source application can contain any amount of code that you don't know about. If the closed-source blobs were entirely separate this would not be an issue. If, for example, I could build Chromium from source myself and copy over a few clearly-defined blobs, and I would get something identical to Chrome, that would be one way to separate them. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is not the case here (if it is, I am honestly curious to see this - please explain how I can do that). Side note: I'm kind of disappointed to see I'm being modded down for saying things that are true. Has fanboyism reached even hacker news, that anyone saying something against their favorite product - even something true - is modded down? Edit: And now I'm being called a troll, ah well. I hope it's obvious that I am 100% sincere in my opinions here, and the fact that I have already conceded the point to wmf should make it perfectly clear no trolling was going on from my side. (wmf says it's an oversimplification, I prefer to say it's an inaccuracy, but they both mean basically the same thing and I am fine with using either term.)
  - mkr-hn 15y ago
    I'm just glancing at the Chrome directory on Windows, but I see these: gcswf32.dll (flash), pdf.dll Which tells me the functionality for Flash and PDF viewing are handled externally. That also tells me Google is intentionally keeping these separate, so the other things are probably external too.
    - azakai 15y ago
      That isn't strong evidence either way (I am sure for example that closed source browsers have separate modules for various closed source things). The question is whether the reset of the code is identical or not to Chromium. I suggested one way before to get a clear answer, but to my knowledge there is simply no way to know.
      - mkr-hn 15y ago
        So what you're saying is that you lack the basis to claim Chrome, the browser and not the components that ship next to it, is closed source.
        azakai 15y ago
        No. Chrome is shipped by Google in binary form, and without instructions for generating it in its entirety from source. That, by definition, is not open source. It contains parts that are, otherwise, known to be open source. The same is true for Safari and Opera. It contains many more such parts than those browsers, to be sure, but it is still not fully open source.
        mkr-hn 15y ago
        The source, as best as anyone can tell, is Chromium. It's just a branding difference until you demonstrate that Chrome != Chromium + blobs. The blog post and everything Google says indicates that Chrome is just Chromium rebadged and shipped with some stuff. You're free to go and (try to) disprove this by compiling Chromium so you can compare it with Chrome.

by azakai 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

mkr-hn 15y ago

edit: I just realized that I got trolled. Sorry about the mess. You can safely page down past this tree without missing any valuable conversation. Can you list the things that are part of Chrome and not a separate blob? As far as I know the closed stuff is separate from the executable. Unless you believe shipping an open source product with closed source blobs makes it closed source. Which would be weird.

azakai 15y ago
As I mentioned, Flash is bundled and is closed source, and the print preview functionality as well. There is also the closed-source PDF viewer (which is related to the print preview functionality in some way). And some audio codecs are present in Chrome but not Chromium, but I do not know if they are closed source or not (perhaps they are missing for other reasons). Those are the main things we know about. The bigger issue, though, is that by definition a closed-source application can contain any amount of code that you don't know about. If the closed-source blobs were entirely separate this would not be an issue. If, for example, I could build Chromium from source myself and copy over a few clearly-defined blobs, and I would get something identical to Chrome, that would be one way to separate them. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is not the case here (if it is, I am honestly curious to see this - please explain how I can do that). Side note: I'm kind of disappointed to see I'm being modded down for saying things that are true. Has fanboyism reached even hacker news, that anyone saying something against their favorite product - even something true - is modded down? Edit: And now I'm being called a troll, ah well. I hope it's obvious that I am 100% sincere in my opinions here, and the fact that I have already conceded the point to wmf should make it perfectly clear no trolling was going on from my side. (wmf says it's an oversimplification, I prefer to say it's an inaccuracy, but they both mean basically the same thing and I am fine with using either term.)
- mkr-hn 15y ago
  I'm just glancing at the Chrome directory on Windows, but I see these: gcswf32.dll (flash), pdf.dll Which tells me the functionality for Flash and PDF viewing are handled externally. That also tells me Google is intentionally keeping these separate, so the other things are probably external too.
  - azakai 15y ago
    That isn't strong evidence either way (I am sure for example that closed source browsers have separate modules for various closed source things). The question is whether the reset of the code is identical or not to Chromium. I suggested one way before to get a clear answer, but to my knowledge there is simply no way to know.
    - mkr-hn 15y ago
      So what you're saying is that you lack the basis to claim Chrome, the browser and not the components that ship next to it, is closed source.
      - azakai 15y ago
        No. Chrome is shipped by Google in binary form, and without instructions for generating it in its entirety from source. That, by definition, is not open source. It contains parts that are, otherwise, known to be open source. The same is true for Safari and Opera. It contains many more such parts than those browsers, to be sure, but it is still not fully open source.
        mkr-hn 15y ago
        The source, as best as anyone can tell, is Chromium. It's just a branding difference until you demonstrate that Chrome != Chromium + blobs. The blog post and everything Google says indicates that Chrome is just Chromium rebadged and shipped with some stuff. You're free to go and (try to) disprove this by compiling Chromium so you can compare it with Chrome.