3 ms·

> Open-source-ness only depends on the source code being released under a suitable license. It has nothing to do with complexity or maintainability of it. That

by JadeNB 2y ago

> Open-source-ness only depends on the source code being released under a suitable license. It has nothing to do with complexity or maintainability of it. That's a definition, but I think that stavros was proposing that, much like Microsoft's "open" formats for Office, if a codebase is so complex that no-one else, not even with the resources of a full company, can maintain it, then at best its open sourceness is pro forma.

murderfs 2y ago
By that logic, Linux isn't open source. Plenty of companies have abandoned products because maintaining a downstream fork of the kernel is too hard. Companies not being willing to invest resources into maintaining a fork doesn't mean it's not open source.
- Spivak 2y ago
  But companies do maintain what are essentially forks of the kernel, both Redhat and Canonical carry their own patches and have ship different kernel variants. It's not politically a fork but it's the same sort of thing.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    So whether something is open source depends on whether others bother maintaining it? Even if that doesn’t change that an individual cannot?
stavros 2y ago
Yep, exactly. The disagreements here come down to a "spirit vs letter" debate. Yes, Chromium is open source by the letter of the law, as it's licensed under a FOSS license, but FOSS comes with certain expectations that you'll be able to use and modify the source code in certain ways. The fact that Google has managed to make a codebase open, but extremely onerous to actually maintain a fork of, does actually go against the spirit of FOSS a bit, in my opinion.
- dartos 2y ago
  What’s much harder about maintaining a chrome fork than a fork of the Linux kernel?
- rightbyte 2y ago
  I don't think the problem is Chrome's source etc, but that Google pulls levers to change the web for the worse by pushing complexity. It becomes an ever going churn to keep up. I haven't read the Chrome source but is it any worse than say Linux or gcc?
  - stavros 2y ago
    Oh yeah, definitely, it's not just the codebase. Google is making sure alternate browser engines can't exist by making them much more complicated.
lxgr 2y ago
Open source and open format/specification/protocol are quite different concerns, and in fact the problem here is with the latter, not the former: The modern web stack is so complicated that any current browser engine has a significant moat. In other words, the problem isn't that Chrome is not open source; the problem is the amount of work it takes to maintain or compete with it.

by JadeNB 2y ago

murderfs 2y ago

By that logic, Linux isn't open source. Plenty of companies have abandoned products because maintaining a downstream fork of the kernel is too hard. Companies not being willing to invest resources into maintaining a fork doesn't mean it's not open source.

Spivak 2y ago
But companies do maintain what are essentially forks of the kernel, both Redhat and Canonical carry their own patches and have ship different kernel variants. It's not politically a fork but it's the same sort of thing.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  So whether something is open source depends on whether others bother maintaining it? Even if that doesn’t change that an individual cannot?

stavros 2y ago

Yep, exactly. The disagreements here come down to a "spirit vs letter" debate. Yes, Chromium is open source by the letter of the law, as it's licensed under a FOSS license, but FOSS comes with certain expectations that you'll be able to use and modify the source code in certain ways. The fact that Google has managed to make a codebase open, but extremely onerous to actually maintain a fork of, does actually go against the spirit of FOSS a bit, in my opinion.

dartos 2y ago
What’s much harder about maintaining a chrome fork than a fork of the Linux kernel?
rightbyte 2y ago
I don't think the problem is Chrome's source etc, but that Google pulls levers to change the web for the worse by pushing complexity. It becomes an ever going churn to keep up. I haven't read the Chrome source but is it any worse than say Linux or gcc?
- stavros 2y ago
  Oh yeah, definitely, it's not just the codebase. Google is making sure alternate browser engines can't exist by making them much more complicated.

lxgr 2y ago

Open source and open format/specification/protocol are quite different concerns, and in fact the problem here is with the latter, not the former: The modern web stack is so complicated that any current browser engine has a significant moat. In other words, the problem isn't that Chrome is not open source; the problem is the amount of work it takes to maintain or compete with it.