Please read the open source definition. Vivaldi doesn’t meet it. You can’t be kind of open source or partially open source. You either are or you are not.
Making the UI script in Vivaldi OpenSource, the first thing ocurres is that Chrome and Edge use it, killing all the other Chromiums, Vivaldi first.
That’s pure bullshit. Neither Google not Microsoft give a shit about what others are doing. They don’t onboard features from other open source Chromium browsers because they have their own vision.
And even if they wanted to implement similar feature they will have reinvent the wheel themselves instead of using code from open source, because under most open source licences you have to share the source code back and they are like exactly like Vivaldi. Using open source Chromium backend, with proprietary frontend.
You have fundamental lack of understanding how licensing works. And as you mentioned there are plenty of open source browsers that not only survive being open source, but thrive in their own niches.
There are a lot of good things about Vivaldi, but that doesn’t make them bulletproof from valid critisim.
None of the browsers that exist are free of critical aspects and Vivaldi is no exception. That Google and EDGE are not interested in the Vivaldi UI is not true at all, it shows the attempt to imitate different functions introduced by Vivaldi with mediocre results.
Although Vivaldi is still a minority browser, it is gaining a lot of acceptance in large companies and even in the automotive world with the inclusion of series in Renault, Polestar, Mercedes and even VAG, which not even Google has achieved, which can mean more than 40 million users in the near future.
In other words, it can become a competitor to be taken seriously, as a European response to Google.
From this point of view, this discrepancy of a script that differentiates Vivaldi from the others makes sense, although it does not conform to the traditional definition of OpenSource, since it is “Open” at the user level, but not to the competition for being owned by Vivaldi . Making it OpenSource, with restrictive licenses in the background, wouldn’t change anything.
Please read the open source definition. Vivaldi doesn’t meet it. You can’t be kind of open source or partially open source. You either are or you are not.
That’s pure bullshit. Neither Google not Microsoft give a shit about what others are doing. They don’t onboard features from other open source Chromium browsers because they have their own vision.
And even if they wanted to implement similar feature they will have reinvent the wheel themselves instead of using code from open source, because under most open source licences you have to share the source code back and they are like exactly like Vivaldi. Using open source Chromium backend, with proprietary frontend.
You have fundamental lack of understanding how licensing works. And as you mentioned there are plenty of open source browsers that not only survive being open source, but thrive in their own niches.
There are a lot of good things about Vivaldi, but that doesn’t make them bulletproof from valid critisim.
None of the browsers that exist are free of critical aspects and Vivaldi is no exception. That Google and EDGE are not interested in the Vivaldi UI is not true at all, it shows the attempt to imitate different functions introduced by Vivaldi with mediocre results. Although Vivaldi is still a minority browser, it is gaining a lot of acceptance in large companies and even in the automotive world with the inclusion of series in Renault, Polestar, Mercedes and even VAG, which not even Google has achieved, which can mean more than 40 million users in the near future. In other words, it can become a competitor to be taken seriously, as a European response to Google. From this point of view, this discrepancy of a script that differentiates Vivaldi from the others makes sense, although it does not conform to the traditional definition of OpenSource, since it is “Open” at the user level, but not to the competition for being owned by Vivaldi . Making it OpenSource, with restrictive licenses in the background, wouldn’t change anything.