Firefox

20363 readers

24 users here now

/c/firefox

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox.

Rules

1. Adhere to the instance rules

2. Be kind to one another

3. Communicate in a civil manner

Reporting

If you would like to bring an issue to the moderators attention, please use the "Create Report" feature on the offending comment or post and it will be reviewed as time allows.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

k_o_t@lemmy.ml

golden_zealot@lemmy.ml

284

Firefox has a lot of issues, but maybe we don't have any other option. (www.bleepingcomputer.com)

submitted 11 months ago by astro_ray@lemdro.id to c/firefox@lemmy.ml

156 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/20260243

Google Chrome warns uBlock Origin may soon be disabled

Google Chrome is now encouraging uBlock Origin users who have updated to the latest version to switch to other ad blockers before Manifest v2 extensions are disabled.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ambitiousslab@lemmy.ml 5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I really wish there was a GPL-licensed rendering engine and browser, accepting community funding, with some momentum behind it.

I feel Ladybird have correctly identified the problem - that all major browsers and engines (including Firefox) get their primary source of funding from Google, and thus ads. And the donations and attention they've received show that there is real demand for an alternative.

But I think the permissive license they have chosen means history will repeat itself. KHTML being licensed under the LGPL made it easy for Google to co-opt, since it was so much easier to incorporate into a proprietary (or more permissively licensed) codebase.

There is Netsurf, but the rendering engine understandably and unfortunately lags behind the major ones. I just wish it was possible to gather support and momentum behind it to the same extent that Ladybird has achieved.

[–] wuphysics87@lemmy.ml 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm probably wrong, but isn't the Mozilla License non-permissive? It's likely more complicated than that. Non-permissive*

[–] ambitiousslab@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Agreed, it's licensed under the MPL, a "weak copyleft" license. Each file that is MPL must remain MPL, but other files in the same project can be permissive or even proprietary.

While I definitely think it's better than a fully permissive license, it seems more permissive than the LGPL, which is the main license of WebKit and Blink. So I don't feel it's strong enough to stop it being co-opted.

[–] ssm@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

GPL is not good enough, a new browser meant to thwart Google should have a strict anti-corporate anti-commercial license, even if it doesn't fall under the umbrella of open source.

If you don't believe me, please consult proprietary vendor android distributions.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 0 points 11 months ago

Good luck with that

Maybe you should make everyone sign a EULA and pay royalties

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Ladybird is the best we have. At the end of the day the big part that matters is source code and the 4 freedoms

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

To nobody in the real world, the 4 freedoms could matter any less if they tried. That is not to say it's not important to have certain things be standardized and open source, but if you skew your perspective that much, you cannot find actual solutions: You aren't even recognizing the actual problem.