Is this web browser FOSS?



  • I am just wondering what license this web browser is under. Chromium is open source. So if it isn't than they are selfish devs who don't want to give back to the community. Otherwise I would want to help make it.



  • Guess not, vivaldi://terms Please make it open source.



  • Seconded- Vivaldi should be 100% Free/Libre software. The freedom of the users if of the utmost importance.
    Not only will it make the Free Software community and niche happy, (www.fsf.org), it will lead to more GNU/Linux distributions making it easy to install, and it will help Vivaldi become better and more widely used. It'll create a real community!
    (Note that a great amount of power users care about "open-ness" or freedom!)



  • There could be technical or licensing reason why its not. Honestly I don't care. Open or private code it works for me.



  • @terere:

    There could be technical or licensing reason why its not. Honestly I don't care. Open or private code it works for me.

    Vivaldi - A dishonest browser for our friends who do not care


  • Moderator

    @jadedfs:

    The freedom of the users if of the utmost importance.

    With the actual EULA, users can freely use or not use Vivaldi browser.



  • @lam-da:

    @terere:

    There could be technical or licensing reason why its not. Honestly I don't care. Open or private code it works for me.

    Vivaldi - A dishonest browser for our friends who do not care

    What has honesty anything to do with open source licensing?

    You must live in a very lonely place if you think anyone that writes software and decides not to make it open source is automatically a dishonest person.



  • If Vivaldi devs thinking about future they should make it open source.
    Just look at what happened to Opera. Several wrong decisions from new management killed beloved product that had great potential.
    If Vivaldi as user-oriented as they say, they must go open source.



  • @maister_Pernat:

    If Vivaldi devs thinking about future they should make it open source.
    Just look at what happened to Opera. Several wrong decisions from new management killed beloved product that had great potential.
    If Vivaldi as user-oriented as they say, they must go open source.

    Unfortunately, closed software has much better success rate than FOSS. 99% of FOSS never makes it past early alphas, and the stuff that does is usually a UI nightmare that no average user would touch or lags in functionality behind commercial software. There are some prominent exceptions, of course, but they are just that - exceptions.



  • @maister_Pernat:

    If Vivaldi devs thinking about future they should make it open source.
    Just look at what happened to Opera. Several wrong decisions from new management killed beloved product that had great potential.
    If Vivaldi as user-oriented as they say, they must go open source.

    It has absolutely nothing to do with the reason Opera was closed source. It was because the management in Opera changed, Opera decided to pursue other goals and other interests as a company, all their investment lately are in marketing things and not in software. Opera browser was always closed source. Actually right now, its more open source than it ever was because its using Blink and look how its going for them, bad.

    Opera changed most of their desktop team management, look at the team leader and developers, they are mostly Polish now and work from Poland because for Opera its all about reducing costs now and with that you have a drastic reduction in quality.

    Also, Opera decided to make the browser popular and simple, they wanted to get rid of the power users and want a more mainstream market. Somehow you think something open source will be successful by its own and its not true. Most open source projects are abandoned or fail, open source can also be trash, it makes no difference.

    If you mean open source in the terms of tweaking and modifying, it already is. It does not get more open than this.

    Didn't you notice its build on standard web technologies? You can change the code at your will and its also running Chromium which is open source. So what exactly is the problem?



  • @terere:

    It has absolutely nothing to do with the reason Opera was closed source. It was because the management in Opera changed…

    You didn't get it. I meant to say that IF old Opera was open source from the beginning we as community would have a chance now to maintain and support it after devs decided to ditch it. And since it was closed source all we can do now is sit and watch how it slowly dies. So this mistake shouldn't be made again.

    And who knows what will happen to Vivaldi in the future? People come and go. If devs are thinking about the future of their project they should give it a chance to outlive them.



  • Yes I did get it but I don't think its smart for them to decide something like his when they first need to measure the publics reactions and still don't even have an official version out.

    Don't you think it's a bit to soon to make a move like that or even be talking about such an important decision? In particular when they have no idea yet how to finance themselves.

    You don't open source a project in the beginnings just to assure it will keep on in case it dies in the future. Nobody starts a new venture with that mind. You open source it when you decide to stop developing it, that means in case they decide not to continue with it in the future, you can absolutely bet they would make it open source and give it to the community so they can maintain it.

    Opera didn't do it for obvious reasons. They didn't kill their desktop browser, they changed it. If they opened Presto, users would not move to their new crap and people like Vivaldi would had taken the code and make a competition browser even faster than what it took them now. If management did that, they would get fired by the stock holders, I don't think I have to explain why Opera didn't open source Presto, in particular when some many ex Presto developers left the company after that decision. Opera wanted Presto to die and they made sure users could not just take it and revive it.

    Vivaldi is open right now, the license is not and I don't see why it should be yet. Let them first position themselves and get the company to a stable point where it does not need to be financed with personal money anymore. They need to recover their investment eventually and the make the project take flight on its on. Its absolutely ridiculous to discuss to open the license on a project that cost them tons of money and hard work for a full year without even giving it a chance.

    Since the code is free already for modifications, the only reason why someone would ask this is because they want to make a clone or fork, which means take what they did for a full year and start their own fork. I assume that because only the license is not open source in terms of free, the code is already open for modifications. It does not affect absolutely anyone as a user except someone wanting to rip off their work. Right now they are on a very early stage where that is possible. You don't ask someone to give a full year of their live and tons of money for nothing, it's a risk at this stage. Its very soon, maybe they do open the license in the future, but why now? Its not even a week yet, and there is still a huge road ahead of us and see how the product evolves.

    You do realize that this is only a licensing discussion, because the code is already open. I don't understand how this can possible affect someone from a users perspective.

    Vivaldi is open code and its based on open source code. What much more open than that do you need or want?



  • I wonder how many of open source fanboys actually touched a project code even once in their lives. :whistle:



  • i think (presto-based) opera was so good because was closed-source - at least there was no easy way for copycats to steal the successful opera ideas and implementations ;)



  • I also support that this browser should be open source. Personally, that's one of the main things that would drive me to choose it or not - not open source means that if the developers cease to make money from it or decide to ditch it for any other reason, it will never update, as the old Opera. Open source means that if that happens, other people can take the helm and keep it going.

    That said, I think accusing developers of egoism, dishonesty, etc. for not making software open source is very bad manners and doesn't do any good for the cause. Developers have the right of licensing their work as they see fit. They are giving you a nice browser for free, and you can take it or leave it. I'd like it to be open source and we should express that this is important for us, but then the devs are in their right of agreeing or not.

    By the way, for those that are so keen to contribute with code, there is at least one browser for power users that is implementing many features in the spirit of the old Opera, is open source and probably would welcome contributions… I'm not going to say the name because it looks like bad manners to talk about the competition here (maybe it's even forbidden), but if you're interested you surely can find the info.



  • I hope Vivaldi will never go open source. Unfinished features, bugs not fixed for years, forks fragmenting userbase, terrible UI - that's FOSS in all its glory.
    Old Opera was great exactly because it was closed source and controlled by some great people. People in control changed - all greatness went down the drain.
    Being OS, Opera would die a horrible death a long time ago. Just look at current OS browsers - are there any worth using? Even remotely comparable to Opera
    in features and speed? No and No.



  • @maister_Pernat:

    Several wrong decisions from new management killed beloved product that had great potential.

    They killed an extremely niche product that power users still mourn. They created a dumbed-down, simple, user friendly product that offers much more than Chrome. And apparently it was a good decision (they say their user numbers are higher than ever).

    Ditching Presto was a good decision from absolutely every persepective, except for the power users'. And we're a too small a group to matter if someone does this kind of stuff for a living and not as a hobby.



  • We as users tend to LOVE free software since, of course, it costs us no money - which, consequentially, means we don't really have to work for it. Likewise, open source offers some attractive features in the opinion of some users… its ability to be custom modified, its openness to security/privacy analysis, and so on. So naturally, a lot of users would like to have both free and open source software.

    But IMO, it's not reasonable to press software makers to supply their free software as open source. We can ask, politely, and explain our reasons for preferring open source... but if the answer is "no", we should accept it as a rational business decision on the part of the makers and get on with our lives. And certainly, making pointless threats of "going elsewhere" and so on have no place in a reasonable discussion of this.

    The software makers value their money and effort just as much as we value ours. Creating ideas and successfully writing them into code takes time and money, and to simply give away to competitors their creative solutions for thorny coding and interface problems by making their code open source is not a decision we as freeware users are entitled to determine. It remains a business decision for those underwriting all the costs. If they choose to be 'charitable' and openly give away their intellectual property regardless of the costs to them, that is their decision alone to make. End of story.



  • I love open source products. And use a lot of them. But I don't see open source software in general as free of charge. I donate for a lot of projects, if I love them. And usually I donate more than I would probably pay if I have to buy it. But I think there are a lot of people which see it different or aren't able to make bigger donations. So I respect the decision of a company not to open source their software, when they want to pay wages for their employees.

    By the way to tell open source means " Unfinished features, bugs not fixed for years, forks fragmenting userbase, terrible UI - that's FOSS in all its glory." is nonsense. There are a lot of proofs that this is not true. And there is a lot of closed source software which is exactly what you claimed FOSS for.

    I think there are always two sides on a medal. Open source has a lot of advantages but also there are disadvantages. Forks can be a nice option, if the software you loved takes another path. On the other side often means forking a project to weaken it.
    Somebody has written, that if opera has been open source, the community would have had the chance to maintain the code. That's in general true,but you need a lot of good developers with a lot of spare time to do this. And than you have to hope that they want the same as you want, otherwise you …. need a fork.

    So I think in to say open source software is always great and closed source software is evil in every way is as wrong as to say only closed source software has a good quality and Foss is rubbish.

    But in times of NSA and big companies which sell your data (and their soul) for less than a cent, openness is more important than it ever was. But that doesn't mean that open source is the ONLY way. For me is open code enough, so the community has a chance to discover if there is something fishy.

    In the end I hope that there is a reasonable business idea behind Vivaldi. So we get a browser which doesn't lock your search engine to some big ones or collects your data, etc. If that means I have to pay for Vivaldi, that's OK for me.



  • I'm fine with the UI not being open-source, because it doesn't seem like a vector for security vulnerabilities; it's good that Vivaldi's rendering and scripting engines are open-source, because they are (and while Presto was still being maintained, at least it had developers who were responsive to vulnerability disclosures, although it's a shame it hasn't been open-sourced).


Log in to reply
 

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