3 ms·

Google has open sourced only as much as they had too for using Webkit's GPL codebase and have been notorious in close-sourcing bits when they are able (like the

by inglor 4y ago

Google has open sourced only as much as they had too for using Webkit's GPL codebase and have been notorious in close-sourcing bits when they are able (like the DevTools WebAssembly debugging tools and a ton of other stuff). So the fact Chromium is (mostly) open source (Chrome is most certainly not) is certainly not charity or the goodness of their hearts. It is the work of idealistic individuals like Lars Knoll who gave us this among other things like Qt. This is also true for a lot of other Google projects like Android.

londons_explore 4y ago
Having spent a lot of time working on the codebase... Far more is opensource than Google needed to make open, and the development model is far more open than androids. In the chromium codebase, there are even some modules where the key technical decision-makers aren't Google employees.
magicalist 4y ago
> Google has open sourced only as much as they had too for using Webkit's GPL codebase This isn't remotely true. Most of Chromium code is BSD-3-Clause. > have been notorious in close-sourcing bits when they are able (like the DevTools WebAssembly debugging tools I'm not a fan of that either, but to be fair it's a Chrome extension[1], not part of Chrome. > and a ton of other stuff). Like what? The trend has generally been the other way. Flash was removed, PDFium was released. Video codecs? But they've always been that way. [1] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cc%20%20-devtools-support-dwa/pdcpmagijalfljmkmjngeonclgbbannb https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cc%20%20-devtools-...
- inglor 4y ago
  > This isn't remotely true. Most of Chromium code is BSD-3-Clause. Yes, because when Apple forked KHTML they made the _least amount_ possible open source and when they faced public pressure and were criticised (note unlike Google - Apple doesn't really have a big business incentive to keep their browser open source anyway) they open sourced the parts that are/were outside WebCore and JavaScriptCore as BSD. Hardly benevolence. > I'm not a fan of that either, but to be fair it's a Chrome extension[1], not part of Chrome. That's true - it's also true for other parts of the codebase. I see your point about video codecs, drm and a bunch of other stuff and Google _does_ benefit from the fact companies like Igalia filled with ex-Googlers can contribute significantly to Chromium. I think it's important to make a distinction here between the engineers "with boots on the ground" - many of them care deeply about the internet and chromium being open and about working on an open source project and the people higher up making the more strategic decisions. It's also worth mentioning Chromiums is very much a "closed club" with a different (harder) contribution model, builds and meta-builds that work well only if you work for a large-co (otherwise it's built on your machine and takes hours) and it's very unreachable if you're not "in the know" compared to other projects. I don't think that part is malevolence though I just think making an open source project more open is hard.

by inglor 4y ago

londons_explore 4y ago

Having spent a lot of time working on the codebase... Far more is opensource than Google needed to make open, and the development model is far more open than androids. In the chromium codebase, there are even some modules where the key technical decision-makers aren't Google employees.

magicalist 4y ago

> Google has open sourced only as much as they had too for using Webkit's GPL codebase This isn't remotely true. Most of Chromium code is BSD-3-Clause. > have been notorious in close-sourcing bits when they are able (like the DevTools WebAssembly debugging tools I'm not a fan of that either, but to be fair it's a Chrome extension[1], not part of Chrome. > and a ton of other stuff). Like what? The trend has generally been the other way. Flash was removed, PDFium was released. Video codecs? But they've always been that way. [1] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cc%20%20-devtools-support-dwa/pdcpmagijalfljmkmjngeonclgbbannb https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cc%20%20-devtools-...

inglor 4y ago
> This isn't remotely true. Most of Chromium code is BSD-3-Clause. Yes, because when Apple forked KHTML they made the _least amount_ possible open source and when they faced public pressure and were criticised (note unlike Google - Apple doesn't really have a big business incentive to keep their browser open source anyway) they open sourced the parts that are/were outside WebCore and JavaScriptCore as BSD. Hardly benevolence. > I'm not a fan of that either, but to be fair it's a Chrome extension[1], not part of Chrome. That's true - it's also true for other parts of the codebase. I see your point about video codecs, drm and a bunch of other stuff and Google _does_ benefit from the fact companies like Igalia filled with ex-Googlers can contribute significantly to Chromium. I think it's important to make a distinction here between the engineers "with boots on the ground" - many of them care deeply about the internet and chromium being open and about working on an open source project and the people higher up making the more strategic decisions. It's also worth mentioning Chromiums is very much a "closed club" with a different (harder) contribution model, builds and meta-builds that work well only if you work for a large-co (otherwise it's built on your machine and takes hours) and it's very unreachable if you're not "in the know" compared to other projects. I don't think that part is malevolence though I just think making an open source project more open is hard.