Comment by F3nd0

Yes, we are aware of how permissive licenses work.

If someone forks our code and does a better job with it than we do, fair game. :)

Reality check:

1. All the BSDs have been out there for decades without anyone running with it.

2. Google and Microsoft - while being a shadow of their former selves technically - are probably still very capable of reimplementing whatever they want.

3. If Ladybird gets so wildly popular, lets celebrate wildly!

> Hey, just a reality check:

It's rather condescending of you to assume that the developers of Ladybird aren't fully aware of the consequences that their choice of license entails.

KHTML was the basis for Chrome and Safari. A valid concern

"Better" is a subjective term. I would probably stay on OG Ladybird if it meant MS/Google-ified LB starts screenshotting/OCRing/Uploading/LLMing all the data, even if it were to become faster and more slick.

Slow computing it's sometimes called [0]

I sometimes experience some friction (really acceptable though) on Firefox, it has never lured me to Edge of Chrome. Some people have standards you know ;)

[0] https://www.slowcomputingbook.com/

> will be able to fork the browser and then develop it faster than you - thus leaving you behind and taking away your users

So, that fetish for infinite growth... can we get rid of it?

Firefox keeps trying to grow in various directions and look where it's taking them.

They’re backed by Shopify. If Google or Microsoft forked it that would probably be the best thing they could hope for.

> you allow middlemen to strip this right to users of your software.

That's not true.

Somebody can take the source code and build something closed on top of it, but the original code will be already free, and you will always have the right to see it.

For example, PlayStation OS is based on FreeBSD (AFAIK). They took it, adapted it and added a lot of stuff. Did you lose the right to see the source code of FreeBSD ? No. Can you see the source code of PlayStation OS ? No, but you never had that right, so you have not been stripped of anything.

Well, with MIT, you can make your own (A)GPL fork of you like and carry on. Best of luck.

> If you release software under MIT or BSD licenses, you allow middlemen to strip this right to users of your software.

No you don't. You're being extremely disingenuous with this phrasing. No matter how many other parties take the source code and make a closed source product out of it, the users of your software will always have the same rights you granted them to begin with. No freedom has been lost.

And before you say "but your users won't have the same rights to the derivative works", that isn't a loss of freedom. They never had those rights to begin with, therefore they cannot lose them. Not gaining something is not the same as losing it.

That is a complete nonsensical claim & willful attempt at spreading misinformation:

Permissive licenses doesn't grants you less freedom than GPL, infact it grants you more because the user also has the freedom to modify source code without being enforced to make it public.

Companies copying the codebase to their propietary ones won't automatically strip right of users, licenses don't work like that, the original codebase will still be fine. Whether said companies will contribute back is irrelevant.

I think permissive here is a technical term, and is being used correctly from a legal perspective as far as I understand although I am not a lawyer. The GPL is less permissive than a BSD or MIT license because it places more restrictions on the licensee. This is a legal fact and not a matter of spin.

Don’t spread FUD please. Middlemen can’t change Ladybird’s license or prevent anyone from seeing its source code.

I know that’s not what you meant, but it is what you said.

I think you maybe taking it in the wrong context.

There was a hype for discord about 5 years ago for EVERYTHING - discord servers were made for every little thing and there was little to no objection about it.

But in recent times, I have seen many people complain about the lack of searchability, discussion-thread management, and other stuff in Discord and moving away to forums, especially for software projects. There is definitely a lot more disgruntlement with Discord today, so their statement makes sense.

It is the platform of this day and age much like Instagram or Xitter is. Doesn't make it very smart for FOSS projects to be using it for their primary coordination and communication.

Discord is not E2EE.

It is a non-starter.

IRC. And for slow discussions with long messages, you can use NNTP.

(However, GitHub is accessible by git in case you only want to download the repository, regardless of what else they do; however, having multiple mirrors on other services as well can be helpful)

Matrix is a wonderful alternative

discuss?

Ditto. Discord is fantastic platform to use and I'm a member of so many interesting communities across a range of subjects, but it does seem so very precarious to rely on the company to keep it going as it is.