4 ms·

I wonder what would happen if Ladybird matures well to compete with Firefox and Chrome (hope so), and it's just forked away by some company and completely close

I wonder what would happen if Ladybird matures well to compete with Firefox and Chrome (hope so), and it's just forked away by some company and completely closed down in a whim, because BSD-2 allows that.

PedroBatista 2y ago
Why is that such a problem other than the human factor of seeing your code being used by some guys you don’t like?
- zogrodea 2y ago
  I think the issue isn't the potential forking, but that the potential fork may become a dominant and closed one. If one values the web being somewhat open/less monopolistic, an open source web browser would be more appealing. I have faith in the Ladybird browser project to avoid such a situation though.
- master-lincoln 2y ago
  It supports capitalistic predatory tactics that erode our society. Better to exclude them...
- bayindirh 2y ago
  > seeing your code being used by some guys you don’t like? This is not even in the list of my concerns. I just don't like to see efforts of hundreds if not thousands of volunteers are rolled into a closed source application and distributed for the profit of a couple of people who pat themselves on the back because they got their next car/house/whatever for free. This is why I prefer GPL over BSD/MIT.
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    That sounds no different from "code being used by some guys you don't like" to me, to be honest. If some company took my permissively licensed work and turned it into a commercial product, why would I take issue? I put my work out there for the betterment of all, and it is still bettering the world even in its new form. I have no complaints with that.
    - bayindirh 2y ago
      In fact, it's very different. You, as a single person might not care about a patch you contributed, or a small utility you have written. However, not everyone thinks like you (e.g.: Me, as Fig. 1a). When you put all this spectrum of views under a project, it becomes another thing to manage these expectations and what people want from the project in the end. When big shifts start to occur, people will react differently. When it's a project people love and contribute with the expectation of keeping things the way it's, and the things change, people won't be happy. See: Go's opt-out by default telemetry proposal, HashiCorp's and Docker's license changes, Google's persistent push to block ad-blockers, Microsoft's breaking of VSCodium in subtle ways, etc. So it's much more than you and your code, esp. in projects like these. I think licensing them with licenses allowing rug-pulls (esp. under community itself), is a red-flag in many cases. I also put the code I develop myself out there for the betterment of all, but it's licensed with GPL, because I don't want someone take and run away with it for "betterment of themselves rather than everyone". Now, you might not agree with me, and I respect that, but that's the terms I put on my code. As I always say. If you like it that much, reimplement it. I don't care. Conversely, I contribute to a project which allows no GPL code, because it's designed to be both open, and be customized and closed at the same time. We put it out very openly in the beginning, because that license is a requirement for the use case we (as in ~10 countries) have, and MIT is the best one for our use case. ...but, Ladybird is not that. The project tries to build an important, foundational commodity item. Allowing it to be taken private is a mistake, IMO.
rice7th 2y ago
And so? Yes people (and companies) would fork your code, but the most realistic scenario would be that the original ladybird would still be the most relevant browser of it's family, just like firefox, so the problem kinda resolves by itself
- bayindirh 2y ago
  Then why KDE's Konqueror is not the most prominent browser of the KHTML family, but Safari is?
  - rice7th 2y ago
    Because apple themselves forked it. Only a handful of companies have the power to basically change the web browser market, and apple sure was one. Nowadays every company copies from chrome, so why would anyone bother forking ladybird?
    - bayindirh 2y ago
      Doesn't this contradict with what you said? According to your previous comment, even if Apple has forked KHTML, it shouldn't harm Konqueror, and it shall prevail as the most popular of its family. However, Konqueror/KHTML is now dead and we only have a closed source Safari. I can't fathom your comments back to back.
      - rice7th 2y ago
        Apple didn't kill KHTML, the web did. As I've already stated, any company that may fork a similar project would actually cause more benefit than harm. KHTML died because the web started to get very complex very fast and KDE volounteers couldn't keep up with that pace, unlike Apple employees. Now that the web is a bit more stable, with less standards that are more thought-out (webassembly), it's a lot easier to maintain a web browser. So if tomorrow Microsoft hops in and announces it's intent to fork ladybird, then the latter would not only be fine, but it would probably recieve a new wave of contributors.
- 2y ago
rty32 2y ago
If you the amount of features in Chrome and Firefox (just those in the standard, nothing extra), you would know "mature well to compete" is a long way away, if not impossible. And I don't see any problem with forking. Tons of browser bugs were found, reported and fixed exactly because companies forked them. And remember that Blink is forked from Webkit.
- bayindirh 2y ago
  I have seen IE's rise and fall. Netscape's rise, burn and rebirth as Firefox, saw Safari as a fork of KHTML and rise of Chrome. Ladybird might be added to this list. It's not impossible. It'll be a winding and hard road to go, but it is not a path with no end. You don't need to fork a codebase to fix its bugs. It's GitHub's workflow (fork -> PR -> merge). What I meant, as noted in this thread, is a hard and closed fork propelled with money and corporate greed, which eclipses the open and primary version and drown it in the process. EEE'ing it, basically. This is why I prefer GPL (preferably V3+). If you want to improve it, it's open. If you want to monetize and EEE it, then nah. It's not allowed.
infecto 2y ago
Lots of big assumptions there. 1) Ladybird matures with a community around it. 2) A company actually cares enough to fork it. 3) Said fork becomes the dominant version. 4) Company closes down fork.
- bayindirh 2y ago
  Yeah, I did these assumptions because I saw potential in the project and witnessed the cycle enough times to worry about its future. On the other hand, it's a food for thought. Just to play with and explore the possibilities.
mnmalst 2y ago
Personally am asking myself what the benefits of the BSD clause compared to a more restrictive license are. The only reason I personally can see is that they want to have to option to close the browser themself in the future.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  Believe it or not, plenty of people prefer permissive licenses because they grant more freedom. Not everyone agrees with the GPL.
  - bayindirh 2y ago
    If you want ultimate freedom, just put it to public domain at the beginning.
    - apantel 2y ago
      Yup. All licensing is about brokering control. The only license that grants true freedom is no license, i.e. public domain. Everything else is a “where’s the control” shell game.
      - shiomiru 2y ago
        (obligatory IANAL) Sadly, that's not how it works; opting out of the copyright game is a lot harder than it should be. "No license" means all rights reserved, and even a public domain dedication is invalid in certain countries. Your best bet is to put your code in the PD and provide a fallback maximally permissive license in countries with insane legislation where that doesn't work (e.g. Germany). The Unlicense notably does this, though lawyers seem to hate it for various reasons. Alternatively, you can use licenses like 0BSD/MIT-0 which are PD-equivalent, but you technically retain copyright, so it should work in aforementioned countries too.
- zzo38computer 2y ago
  One advantage of BSD license being not as complicated as GPL.
fastball 2y ago
To some extent I think Andreas Kling et al might still find that a win, given that the browser market would still have more choice than it does today.

PedroBatista 2y ago

Why is that such a problem other than the human factor of seeing your code being used by some guys you don’t like?

zogrodea 2y ago
I think the issue isn't the potential forking, but that the potential fork may become a dominant and closed one. If one values the web being somewhat open/less monopolistic, an open source web browser would be more appealing. I have faith in the Ladybird browser project to avoid such a situation though.
master-lincoln 2y ago
It supports capitalistic predatory tactics that erode our society. Better to exclude them...
bayindirh 2y ago
> seeing your code being used by some guys you don’t like? This is not even in the list of my concerns. I just don't like to see efforts of hundreds if not thousands of volunteers are rolled into a closed source application and distributed for the profit of a couple of people who pat themselves on the back because they got their next car/house/whatever for free. This is why I prefer GPL over BSD/MIT.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  That sounds no different from "code being used by some guys you don't like" to me, to be honest. If some company took my permissively licensed work and turned it into a commercial product, why would I take issue? I put my work out there for the betterment of all, and it is still bettering the world even in its new form. I have no complaints with that.
  - bayindirh 2y ago
    In fact, it's very different. You, as a single person might not care about a patch you contributed, or a small utility you have written. However, not everyone thinks like you (e.g.: Me, as Fig. 1a). When you put all this spectrum of views under a project, it becomes another thing to manage these expectations and what people want from the project in the end. When big shifts start to occur, people will react differently. When it's a project people love and contribute with the expectation of keeping things the way it's, and the things change, people won't be happy. See: Go's opt-out by default telemetry proposal, HashiCorp's and Docker's license changes, Google's persistent push to block ad-blockers, Microsoft's breaking of VSCodium in subtle ways, etc. So it's much more than you and your code, esp. in projects like these. I think licensing them with licenses allowing rug-pulls (esp. under community itself), is a red-flag in many cases. I also put the code I develop myself out there for the betterment of all, but it's licensed with GPL, because I don't want someone take and run away with it for "betterment of themselves rather than everyone". Now, you might not agree with me, and I respect that, but that's the terms I put on my code. As I always say. If you like it that much, reimplement it. I don't care. Conversely, I contribute to a project which allows no GPL code, because it's designed to be both open, and be customized and closed at the same time. We put it out very openly in the beginning, because that license is a requirement for the use case we (as in ~10 countries) have, and MIT is the best one for our use case. ...but, Ladybird is not that. The project tries to build an important, foundational commodity item. Allowing it to be taken private is a mistake, IMO.

rice7th 2y ago

And so? Yes people (and companies) would fork your code, but the most realistic scenario would be that the original ladybird would still be the most relevant browser of it's family, just like firefox, so the problem kinda resolves by itself

bayindirh 2y ago
Then why KDE's Konqueror is not the most prominent browser of the KHTML family, but Safari is?
- rice7th 2y ago
  Because apple themselves forked it. Only a handful of companies have the power to basically change the web browser market, and apple sure was one. Nowadays every company copies from chrome, so why would anyone bother forking ladybird?
  - bayindirh 2y ago
    Doesn't this contradict with what you said? According to your previous comment, even if Apple has forked KHTML, it shouldn't harm Konqueror, and it shall prevail as the most popular of its family. However, Konqueror/KHTML is now dead and we only have a closed source Safari. I can't fathom your comments back to back.
    - rice7th 2y ago
      Apple didn't kill KHTML, the web did. As I've already stated, any company that may fork a similar project would actually cause more benefit than harm. KHTML died because the web started to get very complex very fast and KDE volounteers couldn't keep up with that pace, unlike Apple employees. Now that the web is a bit more stable, with less standards that are more thought-out (webassembly), it's a lot easier to maintain a web browser. So if tomorrow Microsoft hops in and announces it's intent to fork ladybird, then the latter would not only be fine, but it would probably recieve a new wave of contributors.
2y ago

rty32 2y ago

If you the amount of features in Chrome and Firefox (just those in the standard, nothing extra), you would know "mature well to compete" is a long way away, if not impossible. And I don't see any problem with forking. Tons of browser bugs were found, reported and fixed exactly because companies forked them. And remember that Blink is forked from Webkit.

bayindirh 2y ago
I have seen IE's rise and fall. Netscape's rise, burn and rebirth as Firefox, saw Safari as a fork of KHTML and rise of Chrome. Ladybird might be added to this list. It's not impossible. It'll be a winding and hard road to go, but it is not a path with no end. You don't need to fork a codebase to fix its bugs. It's GitHub's workflow (fork -> PR -> merge). What I meant, as noted in this thread, is a hard and closed fork propelled with money and corporate greed, which eclipses the open and primary version and drown it in the process. EEE'ing it, basically. This is why I prefer GPL (preferably V3+). If you want to improve it, it's open. If you want to monetize and EEE it, then nah. It's not allowed.

infecto 2y ago

Lots of big assumptions there. 1) Ladybird matures with a community around it. 2) A company actually cares enough to fork it. 3) Said fork becomes the dominant version. 4) Company closes down fork.

bayindirh 2y ago
Yeah, I did these assumptions because I saw potential in the project and witnessed the cycle enough times to worry about its future. On the other hand, it's a food for thought. Just to play with and explore the possibilities.

mnmalst 2y ago

Personally am asking myself what the benefits of the BSD clause compared to a more restrictive license are. The only reason I personally can see is that they want to have to option to close the browser themself in the future.

bigstrat2003 2y ago
Believe it or not, plenty of people prefer permissive licenses because they grant more freedom. Not everyone agrees with the GPL.
- bayindirh 2y ago
  If you want ultimate freedom, just put it to public domain at the beginning.
  - apantel 2y ago
    Yup. All licensing is about brokering control. The only license that grants true freedom is no license, i.e. public domain. Everything else is a “where’s the control” shell game.
    - shiomiru 2y ago
      (obligatory IANAL) Sadly, that's not how it works; opting out of the copyright game is a lot harder than it should be. "No license" means all rights reserved, and even a public domain dedication is invalid in certain countries. Your best bet is to put your code in the PD and provide a fallback maximally permissive license in countries with insane legislation where that doesn't work (e.g. Germany). The Unlicense notably does this, though lawyers seem to hate it for various reasons. Alternatively, you can use licenses like 0BSD/MIT-0 which are PD-equivalent, but you technically retain copyright, so it should work in aforementioned countries too.
zzo38computer 2y ago
One advantage of BSD license being not as complicated as GPL.

fastball 2y ago

To some extent I think Andreas Kling et al might still find that a win, given that the browser market would still have more choice than it does today.