Please open source this(Vivaldi)



  • @fidelis:

    Isn't using that as an excuse hypocritical because Vivaldi itself is based on Chromium? Since Vivaldi benefits from other open source projects like Chromium and Javascript, saying that you shouldn't make it open source because someone else might benefit off of Vivaldi doesn't make sense. Besides open source doesn't necessarily mean free, there are licenses that restrict others from modifying or reusing the code.

    Come on! Chromium is all but something in the open source spirit.

    It's just a commercial software, with the source left public, for various reasons, the main of them is Google's convenience.

    Google and Apple parasitized the Khtml work done in the real open source spirit by the Kde guys, to make big money.

    Now is really funny to think about Google and Apple as virgins raped by the evil Vivaldi guys.



  • I do not understand all of the discussion about " not trusting Vivaldi if it is not Open source". What is the connection between trust and open source?

    I have been fooling around with PCs since 1986 - hardware and software - in the IBM clone world. I have used freeware, shareware, proprietary software, open source and what ever has been out there. I bought and replaced chips on motherboards and moved from one 360k floppy drive to two floppies and then into a "Hard Card" which was a hard drive on a card to save the floppy drive physical space.

    To me the PC computer world has always been about what are the best tools - hardware and software - available to do the job at hand. When I first started using Opera, we paid for it AND IT WAS WORTH IT.

    The developers of Vivaldi are providing the user community with a FREE browser that seems to be prepared to go way beyond where Opera was with version 12.xx. Why would they want to open source their code? What would be their rationale?

    I trust the development team at Vivaldi a lot more than I would trust any number of unknown code writers whose agenda no one knows. Give me a break.


  • Moderator

    It's not that "someone else might benefit off of Vivaldi," but more that Vivaldi might NOT benefit off of Vivaldi, because dozens of parasites could steal the work and deny Vivaldi the necessary income to survive, meaning that Vivaldi would vanish. Is that what you are after? Where will the income originate which pays the development staff, if Vivaldi does not own its own work, and cannot contract on an exclusive basis with search and content providers to earn its daily bread? How will the developers eat?



  • Ayespy - Great statement! It goes back to the real world - this is not the Homebrew Computing Club or the Harvard Tech Model Railroad Club. The development team needs to do more than just survive economically.


  • Moderator

    Yeah. Real world is kind of a "thing" of mine. Objective reality ranks high in my hierarchy of importances.



  • Don't do it.

    And that's all I have to say about that.



  • @The_Solutor:

    Come on! Chromium is all but something in the open source spirit.

    It's just a commercial software, with the source left public, for various reasons, the main of them is Google's convenience.

    Google and Apple parasitized the Khtml work done in the real open source spirit by the Kde guys, to make big money.

    Now is really funny to think about Google and Apple as virgins raped by the evil Vivaldi guys.

    I never said that Google was a victim. I simply said that using the excuse that Vivaldi can't be Open Source because someone might use the code is hypocritical, when Vivaldi itself uses the code of open source projects.

    @litehorse3:

    I do not understand all of the discussion about " not trusting Vivaldi if it is not Open source". What is the connection between trust and open source?

    I have been fooling around with PCs since 1986 - hardware and software - in the IBM clone world. I have used freeware, shareware, proprietary software, open source and what ever has been out there. I bought and replaced chips on motherboards and moved from one 360k floppy drive to two floppies and then into a "Hard Card" which was a hard drive on a card to save the floppy drive physical space.

    To me the PC computer world has always been about what are the best tools - hardware and software - available to do the job at hand. When I first started using Opera, we paid for it AND IT WAS WORTH IT.

    The developers of Vivaldi are providing the user community with a FREE browser that seems to be prepared to go way beyond where Opera was with version 12.xx. Why would they want to open source their code? What would be their rationale?

    I trust the development team at Vivaldi a lot more than I would trust any number of unknown code writers whose agenda no one knows. Give me a break.

    Open Source means people can vet the code thereby making it more trustworthy. Note Open Source does not mean Free. You can still have a restrictive license.

    @Ayespy:

    It's not that "someone else might benefit off of Vivaldi," but more that Vivaldi might NOT benefit off of Vivaldi, because dozens of parasites could steal the work and deny Vivaldi the necessary income to survive, meaning that Vivaldi would vanish. Is that what you are after? Where will the income originate which pays the development staff, if Vivaldi does not own its own work, and cannot contract on an exclusive basis with search and content providers to earn its daily bread? How will the developers eat?

    As I said there are Open Source licenses that prevent people from being aloud to modify or reuse the code. Look at Pale Moon for instance. https://www.palemoon.org/redist.shtml

    @Sajadi:

    If i could choose between the possibilities to have either one strong Vivaldi browser in closed source form or dozens open source forks of Vivaldi which would split the userbase, i prefer everytime one single browser over the possibility of "more flavors of the same but only weaker".

    And to trust or not to trust - this applies also in the same way to Open Source. Again, should i refer one more time to Mozilla? They are the perfect example that even if you are Open Source you can make mistake after mistake and are less trustworthy as in the beginning!

    Closed source is not the root of all evil! It is just another business model. Nothing more, nothing less. Also in real business world there are different ways for people to handle their company… Some prefer a GmbH, some prefer a AG - why this should not also apply to a browser company?

    Also - it is easy to scream "open source it" - but honestly.. would the open source demanding people then be willing to pay Vivaldi's bills?

    See above

    @tardigrada:

    Don't do it.

    And that's all I have to say about that.

    Why?



  • @fidelis:

    I never said that Google was a victim. I simply said that using the excuse that Vivaldi can't be Open Source because someone might use the code is hypocritical, when Vivaldi itself uses the code of open source projects.

    The real Open Source must be protected by the GPL v3 license, which is the only way to protect and make an open source project viral and free forever.

    To bad for most people (Linuz Torvalds included) the glory is more important than the basics of the free software idea.

    Linus is happy that Android is dominating the mobile world, the BSD people are happy to see their work is used on iPhones and Macs.

    I'm not, but surely I have to take the whole thing pragmatically. I can't blame the Vivaldi team, just because they want to earn, when the big brothers parasitized all the work done for free by hundreds of developers.

    Vivaldi is not a big company, nor a big open source project, is a little company who is doing a great work for a niche market, and the smaller is the market, the bigger have to be the per copy income. That's the way they choose, and no one can blame them.

    Blame the permissive licenses (and the people who chose them), if you wan't to blame someone. W/o them likely we had Presto still closed but live and kicking, and a bunch of real completely free browsers and rendering engines.


  • Moderator

    Being able to vet code also means being able to craft exploits for it.



  • @Ayespy:

    Being able to vet code also means being able to craft exploits for it.

    Well, that's not a biggie.

    They could be easier to write, but also easier and faster to fix, but even if it was true, most of the Vivaldi code is public, so is not a discriminating point.



  • @RRR13:

    Most people couldn't care less about the FOSSity of a tool.

    Which is not exactly a good idea

    As is not exactly a good idea to moan endlessly about the (partial) closure of Vivaldi



  • Seems many here do not get either open source nor close source.

    At first the question is, how does vivaldi want to monetize the project, how much do they need? This will affect the decision a bit, if they need to fear a free (as in beer) fork.

    Open source does not mean, anything will be split / forked, if there is no reason. Look at the big forks:

    • Libreoffice came, because openoffice got too much influenced by oracle, further the devs wanted to modernize / modularize it more
    • MATE came, because gnome3 was awful, just like opera 12 to the new opera
    • Trinity came, because first KDE4 versions were awful and some users like the more monolithic style of KDE3
    • firefox has only a few forks, many juse avoid trademark problems (iceweasel, abrowser), some for 64bit versions or more optimization (waterfox, swiftfox), the rest like palemoon because of the awful australis interface (again the step why there now is vivaldi)

    Closed source does not mean, that the team will better work together than with open source.

    Most easy option: Just do everything as now, but release source code. No big change for the team.
    Next: Accept wishes/bugreports and even patches related to the released source code
    Fully: Have an open bugtracker and an open VCS (so the helpers can even point out, which commit caused the bug)

    Still nobody got into the team and changed the scope of the project. People just know a bit more, and have the option to suggest things in a meaningful way, if they understand the source.

    So the real question will be a political one. First about money and keeping the source secret to avoid (ad?)free versions.
    Second about money/control and the fear of forks, because of user unfriendly features (like ads), which may lead to a more successful fork.

    If everyone is happy with the project, opensource will not lead to forks, as maintaining a fork is a lot of work and people only do it, if it's worth it.



  • But open source does mean the source code is made available for the world to see, including one's competitors. That code may include novel coding techniques and philosophies that solve otherwise seemingly difficult coding challenges, or it may include hooks and handles intended for including future features that a maker might wish to keep currently private for competitive reasons. What many folks who are attracted to an open source Vivaldi seem not to fully grasp is that somebody has had to pay (that is, risk their capital) for the development of the code thus far, and that somebody may just want to get a financial return on their investment at some point - a point that will arguably be made harder to attain by handing over, "in the clear," all the results of their work to date to competitors - current or future.

    By the way, neither does open source mean the team will better work together than with closed source.



  • i disagree. while i appreciate the idealism, the purpose of a business venture is to make money. plus, much of vivaldi is already developed open source.



  • I'm happy with closed source.


  • Moderator

    I could give a royal flyin' flip one way or the other. I will say, however, that I have never been as happy with ANY open-source software I have ever tried as I have with some closed-source option to do the same thing. It seems to me that for whatever reason, closed-source seems to develop more cleanly, quickly, efficiently, and to a more refined, customer-centric result than open source.

    Examples: LibreOffice vs Softmaker; Firefox or Seamonkey versus old Opera, Vivaldi, etc.; Linux vs most other OSes (it has its points, its leanness for some versions, for instance, but I have never been able to adopt it as a default OS, despite having tried); Thunderbird vs EMClient or a dozen others, etc.

    I'm sure there are exceptions out there and that my experience is not universal. But there always seems to be at least a soupçon of "too many cooks spoil the broth" in open source. My opinion only.


  • Moderator

    "I want Vivaldi as OpenSource" (OS) sounds like "I want a Porsche for free!". Did you get it?

    Many OS is made by people as their hobby and they never get any payment, often they can get a kick in their back by ugly and overdemanding guys. Many OS is made by foundations or non-profit organizations, most of them can do the work because they get money from heritage or sponsors, because they like to reduces their high taxes.

    But Vivaldi Vivaldi Technologies is not a non-profit company.

    I dont think they will release as OpenSource and wait that someone will book payable customer support for a few hundred or thousands $€.
    Jon von Tetzchner is not Santa. But he wants to make money and a good browser.



  • I agree it should be open source. Advertising and priding itself as a browser where you can completely customize everything and having a great community is not completely true unless it is open source. I understand that many people think open sourcing the project too early could kill it, but I don't understand this. If making money is the goal, open source does not necessarily mean you give others the right to fork the project and release their alternative version. How would having free code contributions and more specific bug reports kill a project? Allowing contributions does not mean you are forced to accept all of them. It would also provide a great way to try out employees before hiring them. If someone is passionate and skilled enough to make quality contributions to it for free, you would already know there is a much better chance they would make a great employee than someone you just interviewed and looked at their resume. You could also see how they communicate with others.

    If they are afraid competitors will learn too much from their source code, I don't really see this as much of a concern. Making it open source does not mean you have to give others the right to use it in their projects. Most of what needs to be protected are the ideas and features, not the code that makes them work. Only highly skilled programmers can take someone else's code and integrate/alter it to work in a completely different project. It really would not save them very much time or effort.

    If somehow making money is not the goal then allowing it to split/fork would be even better. In that case, even if it was forked and even if one of the shoot offs became more popular and the original becomes mostly unused, this would probably indicate the other version is better. So rather than seeing that as meaning the project died, it is the opposite. It allowed it to continue on in a better form, allowing it to continue to grow and improve instead of dying off because the original was not going in the right direction.

    Even if they choose not to open source this, they can still make it more "open" than it is now. At the very least they could show us a road map of planned and considered features and allow us to vote on which features we want. That does not mean they would need to go by our votes but at least we could see more where this is going and it would provide a more organized way for them to receive feedback on desired features than the just having a bunch of forum posts.

    There are bigger threats to the project not taking off as much as they want than going open source. For example the name Vivaldi is ridiculous for a browser that wants to become popular. I had to use the browser for longer than expected before I could remember the name in conversation. I'm sure if I recommended Vivaldi to my friends, most of them would not quite be able to remember the name when they got home and tried to download it. It should have a name that is simple, memorable, and catchy. Like Firefox or Chrome, not like Vivaldi or Opera.

    Whether it stays closed source or open source this is already my favorite browser. Yet it has many flaws so I hope it continues to improve.



  • @Gwen-Dragon:

    "I want Vivaldi as OpenSource" (OS) sounds like "I want a Porsche for free!". Did you get it?

    Many OS is made by people as their hobby and they never get any payment, often they can get a kick in their back by ugly and overdemanding guys. Many OS is made by foundations or non-profit organizations, most of them can do the work because they get money from heritage or sponsors, because they like to reduces their high taxes.

    But Vivaldi Vivaldi Technologies is not a non-profit company.

    I dont think they will release as OpenSource and wait that someone will book payable customer support for a few hundred or thousands $€.
    Jon von Tetzchner is not Santa. But he wants to make money and a good browser.

    It is not all the same as wanting a Porsche for free. The only way they make money off a Porsche is people buying one. But nobody buys Vivaldi. However they are making money off Vivaldi I suspect they could continue to do so even if it was open source. Please see my other post for more details about this. One of the reasons some great tools become and stay both open source, free, and great tools is that many different companies might use that tool to get their other work done. So many of these non-profit companies may all have an interest in working together to contribute to an open source project so they can all have the best tool out there. I think all web browsers are lame, including Vivaldi. But Vivaldi is the best I have seen so far. I would think many people would have an interest in contributing to (not just getting it for free) Vivaldi if it were open source. We are already getting it for free, but many may also want to make code contributions that can be evaluated, and accepted or rejected by the Vivaldi team.


  • Moderator

    So here's the deal: A guy with a pretty fair stack of money has decided, single-handedly, to fund the development of a new browser for himself and his friends. He has a particular vision for the browser, and is determined to see it through. At the end, he hopes to make it profitable, and recoup his (CONSIDERABLE) investment plus, perhaps, some profit. That is how Vivaldi came into existence. The guy who OWNS the project has a business model in mind. It's his project. It's his business model. You, the user, get to benefit FOR FREE - FOR ZERO EXCHANGE OF ANY KIND, if his monetization model, and his decision to keep the project closed source (at least as to the product turned out by the employees he is personally paying out of his own pocket) work out.

    Now twenty years ago, there was this thing called Netscape, which had the advantage of being the only game in town, and has evolved into Firefox, and is open-source, relatively slow-developing, and loved by fewer and fewer people, in spite of the huge numbers of people who have accumulated over the decades to contribute to its source code.

    Vivaldi cannot replicate the history and age of Firefox, so it must start afresh, with whatever resources Jon can bring to bear. HIS money, HIS vision.

    There is also this thing called Otter Browser, which aims to duplicate the former glory of Opera 12, and has been in development for about a year longer than Vivaldi has. It's self-described development stage is "Beta 6." It's totally open-source. If you want to see what that approach has to offer, and if you want to contribute to such a project, there it is. Have at it. There is your ultimate Opera 12-successor open-source daydream. Something on the order of 250 entire users have actually downloaded its latest snapshot. You should feel right at home there. Clearly, neither Vivaldi nor Otter is right for everyone, and each person needs to decide what they like best.

    Occasionally, you may want to check in on progress here - or you may not. It appears many Otter users are working overtime to convince themselves Vivaldi is trash and Otter is gold. And an objective real-world comparison on a regular basis might burst that bubble. So if open-source is the Holy Grail for you, you should take extra care never to learn of the advantages of a closed-source project. It might shake your faith.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.