Braves business is built on Google Chromes source code...
Google has 500+ staff working on that codebase. When they finally annoy Google and they decide to rewrite the license for future versions, will Brave be able to keep up?
Google has 500+ staff working on that codebase. When they finally annoy Google and they decide to rewrite the license for future versions, will Brave be able to keep up?
[1]: It was a little more complicated than just "money grab": https://freedomben.medium.com/centos-is-not-dead-please-stop...
[2]: Pre-empting the inevitable "but the GPL", Red Hat goes above and beyond the requirements of the GPL and could make it way harder to build. Also a huge important chunk of the distro is BSD/MIT/Apache/etc. Without that the GPL'ed only stuff would never be a feasible distro anyway
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.
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-...
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.