• cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    333·
    2 months ago

    There will be no improvement with browsers until the introduction of one with a strong copyleft license.

    • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
      13·
      2 months ago

      I’m curious, how would copyleft license improve the quality of browser development? That is really about funding and management.

      • unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        5·
        2 months ago

        Chromium is fully entrenched. “strong copyleft”? Even Microsoft bent to the will of Chromium. And Firefox is just a silly thing where people like me hang on

        • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
          2·
          2 months ago

          If I remember correctly it’s under a copy left license which makes sense given it’s ultimately a derivative of KHTML.

          • unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyzEnglish
            1·
            2 months ago

            KHTML is a discontinued browser engine that was developed by the KDE project. It originated as the engine of the Konqueror browser in the late 1990s, but active development ceased in 2016. It was officially discontinued in 2023. Built on the KParts framework and written in C++, KHTML had relatively good support for Web standards during its prime. Engines forked from KHTML are used by most of the browsers that are widely used today, including WebKit and Blink

            • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
              1·
              2 months ago

              Yes, blink is the engine Chromium uses. Since KHTML was an open source project any project based on it will have to be open source, unless of course it’s just used as a library. Even in that case though blink the engine is forced to be open source even if the browser as a whole isn’t. GNU licenses are considered infectious because anything containing any GNU code automatically and legally becomes open source. So KHTML being unmaintained is irrelevant.