this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2025
406 points (95.7% liked)
Open Source
41020 readers
137 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well, yeah, in that aspect, you're correct. I meant that as a "we had a non Google-reliant engine".
Yes, I understand that. But in my view, Microsoft is the one that might have had "a non Google-reliant engine" (if it's true that they didn't rely on Google code).
They just let us use it under their conditions, for the limited time they decided to make it available to us.. but it was never "ours". We were just contractually allowed to use it, but we didn't really "have" it.
Semantics. I agree with you in principle, but the matter of fact is that we ended up with effectively zero choice over the browser engine.
Yes, the matter of fact is that the reason why that choice was taken away is because everyone except MS was forbidden from "having" that engine. It might have still been alive today in some form had it not been an exclusive MS-owned thing.