178
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 13 points 4 months ago

I do wish this was under the GPLv3 but you can't have it all

[-] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

I’d love to hear your thoughts on why you feel the GPLv3 is better than the BSD2-clause license LadyBird is using.

[-] Veraxus@lemmy.world 27 points 4 months ago

GPLv3 is virally open source (copyleft), BSD 2-Clause is not.

GPLv3 ensures free software remains free and contributions cannot be exploited and withheld from the community. BSD2C does not.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 6 points 4 months ago

GPLv3 makes a company publish the source under the same license. That means no Vivaldi, Chrome, Edge or any other spyware ad ridden browsers. I don't think we need more lock in.

[-] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago

I understand your reasoning, but I think your logic is flawed. If Ladybird is GPLv3, then browsers will continue to use Chromium base which helps the Chrome monopoly. By making it BSD, it will help others adopt it.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

We don't need that much adoption we just need a engine that is capable of not screwing over everyone. We already have plenty of proprietary browsers.

Admittedly BSD may help Ladybug get more funding and development efforts.

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

I'd favour GPL3 too, but we do need wide adoption because that's the only way an independent browser will influence websites not to just design for Chromium. That needs to happen for the new browser to have any impact on Google's ability to dictate standards unilaterally.

[-] Oisteink@feddit.nl -2 points 4 months ago
[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 months ago

The privacy and freedom community

[-] Oisteink@feddit.nl 2 points 4 months ago

You guys should make a browser engine

[-] tabular@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Given the complexity of creating a new browser securely (or at all) then this suggestion is not good.

We already have projects that focus on smaller parts of a web browser (e.g a video player) which are free software. We should work on those and encourage their use over all browsers.

[-] Oisteink@feddit.nl 1 points 4 months ago

Easy enough - i assume you are working on one of these

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

That is a massive undertaking that hasn't been done in a very long time. Modern browsers have either been around for 20 years or are forks. (Sometimes both)

We are taking about creating something from scratch. That can take 5-10 years to do.

The good news is that we have plenty of tools on our tool belt. Think browsers such as Mull and Librewolf plus extensions like ublock.

[-] Oisteink@feddit.nl 2 points 4 months ago

Oh - I thought thats what the story was about. Building a new browser engine.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 0 points 4 months ago

It is but it takes a lot of time

[-] Oisteink@feddit.nl 1 points 4 months ago

Well - I’m not part of the project but I respect the deveopers that are and that they make the right decision for their work or spare time.

If you are part of the project but feel that your effort is wasted you should indeed work on something else

[-] OpenPassageways@lemmy.zip 6 points 4 months ago

I'm normally in the camp that copyleft prevents enterprise adoption, and therefore limits users/contributors... but in this case I agree. I'd like browsers to be copyleft. I'd like to be able to see what kind of sketchy shit Edge and Chrome are throwing on top of Chromium and have it out in the open.

Question for the free software community...

If I used a headless version of a copyleft browser as part of an automated testing suite for proprietary enterprise software, does that violate the copyleft license?

[-] satanmat@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

Looks like it has a reasonable base. But they are targeting an alpha for early 26?

Oof.

Hey it looks like there is some thought behind this; starting a 501c3 and going from there.

Deep sigh…. Good luck Mr Gorkski

[-] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 4 months ago

I legitimately thought 501c3 was a commit hash before my brain engaged.

[-] AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 months ago

You...I like you.

[-] satanmat@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

🤣🤣🤣

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It takes time to start from the ground up. There are a huge amount of web standards and to do it right takes time. It took a long time from Chromium to become usable.

[-] Fitik@fedia.io 10 points 4 months ago

@possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip Pretty cool, but what about Servo? Why not work on it instead?

[-] Outsider9042@aussie.zone 4 points 4 months ago

First Servo, now this. Good times ahead.

[-] Blaze@lemmy.zip 3 points 4 months ago

Randomly stumbled upon this community, pretty cool!

[-] harsh3466@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago

This is great. Can’t wait to use it.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Don't get to excited as it is very new and will take a lot of time and money to stay alive.

Very cool though

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 months ago

I mean... considering that firefox is still kind of a clusterfuck for a surprising number of websites...

I am glad this exists but I see no practical use for it for... anyone. And the cynic in me thinks this will be even more ammunition for "just use chromium, it actually works" akin to the crowd who insist on telling every single person who is considering trying out linux to use arch or gentoo.

[-] MudMan@fedia.io 29 points 4 months ago

... Is it?

I genuinely haven't encountered anything broken using it, short of Youtube. And that's less Firefox and more all the extensions trying to make it usable, I think. There are a couple of bits of functionality missing, but in terms of sites working, it seems perfectly fine.

[-] OpenPassageways@lemmy.zip 6 points 4 months ago

I've also encountered a few issues with Firefox on mobile, but not enough to stop using it as my daily driver.

I don't really blame Firefox though, I'd guess that their implementation is closer to the spec than Chrome's but that companies are cheaping out on testing in multiple browsers.

[-] 0ops@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago

The search function of the Walmart site was broken for a year or two on mobile but it seems it's been fixed. A few webpages I needed for school explicitly weren't supported in non-chromium browers.

[-] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Sonys website breaks for me

Square enix bitches every fucking time

Some other niche sites I use also break in weird and violent ways sometimes

All tested with all add-ons disabled to see if that fixed them, all failed

Lol, downvote me all you want you fucking weridos, doesn't change the facts

[-] MudMan@fedia.io 1 points 4 months ago

Huh. I've used Sony's site recently and I just opened it to see if I noticed anything broken but it seems fine. Of course somebody not seeing a bug doesn't mean the bug doesn't exist, it's not that I don't believe you. All I'm saying is I've been primarily on Firefox for a while now and that hasn't been my experience.

[-] Chozo@fedia.io 6 points 4 months ago

This was my thought, as well. It also reminds me a bit of this classic xkcd.

[-] MyEdgyAlt@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago

We saw the best innovation during the most competitive times in the browser market.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip -1 points 4 months ago

I think either this will die soon or more likely it will be noticed my companies that have been screwed by Google. Google has made lots of unpopular choices with Chromium and I wouldn't be surprised if at least a few companies started funding it in hopes that it might be viable in 5 years. It took a long time to create Chromium.

[-] aleats@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 months ago

If they aren't funding Mozilla, which is a far more significant company with a long history of browser development, the chances they're gonna fund a brand-new browser that very few people have even heard about is next to none.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip -4 points 4 months ago

They aren't funding Mozilla as Mozilla is built on egg shells

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 3 points 4 months ago

While mozilla/firefox is indeed a giant mess of legacy code: Why would a company instead support a hobbyist project with almost zero resources?

At that point we are in the mythical "What if the small business of the world united and made their own product" territory

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It doesn't have zero resources. It has at least 1.2 million dollars

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 months ago

It is not exclusively Firefox but Mozilla corp has 750 staff and 593 million in revenue according to Wikipedia.

One million is maybe ten part time developers for a year.

this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
178 points (95.4% liked)

Free Software

1031 readers
5 users here now

What is free software?

Free software is software that respects the 4 software freedoms. The 4 freedoms are

Please note: Free software does not relate to monetary price. Free software can be sold or gratis (no cost)

Rules:

  1. Please keep on topic
  2. Follow the Lemmy.zip rules
  3. No memes
  4. No "circle jerking" or inflammatory posts
  5. No discussion of illegal content

Please report anything you believe to violate the rules and be sure to include rhetoric on why you think it should be removed.

If you would like to contest mod actions please DM me with your rational as to why you feel that the relivant mod action should be reversed. Remember to use rhetoric and to site any relevant sources. You will only get one chance to argue your point and continued harassment will result in a ban.

Overall this community is pretty laid back and none if the things list above normally are an issue.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS