Fedora's missing Chromium updates

Posted Mar 6, 2022 15:43 UTC (Sun) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
In reply to: Fedora's missing Chromium updates by jezuch
Parent article: Fedora's missing Chromium updates

It's still FOSS. However, just as with any contribution, there is the "is it worth the cost for us to accept this patch and commit to maintaining it ourselves?" angle that needs to be taken into account. Given that Google (presumably) doesn't care all that much right now, to cost of having to merge it all the time to keep up-to-date with "real" upstream is likely non-zero. Sure, distro maintainers could work together to maintain it as part of Chromium itself, but maybe that is too much for them to split their efforts. Things will likely get done, just maybe not in a timeline that anyone is impressed by.

Fedora's missing Chromium updates

Posted Mar 8, 2022 22:00 UTC (Tue) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link] (3 responses)

> Given that Google (presumably) doesn't care all that much right now ...

If patch acceptance depends so much on whims of a single entity then IMO it's "open" and "free" only on paper.

Fedora's missing Chromium updates

Posted Mar 8, 2022 23:01 UTC (Tue) by pebolle (guest, #35204) [Link]

> If patch acceptance depends so much on whims of a single entity then IMO it's "open" and "free" only on paper.

One can reject all patches and still be considered providing free software or open source. Not just on paper but in actual practice. Patch acceptance is not a requirement for either movements and that's for perfectly good reasons.

Fedora's missing Chromium updates

Posted Mar 9, 2022 0:06 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (1 responses)

> If patch acceptance depends so much on whims of a single entity then IMO it's "open" and "free" only on paper.

That is entirely incorrect. If I release my software under say the MIT license and I refuse to accept any patches because I have zero interest in reviewing your patches, my software is still entirely open and free, you are free to use it, you are free to fork it etc, it meets all the definitions of open source and free software. You can make a more nebulous claim that it doesn't meet some sort of "spirit" of open source software but it is a much more weaker one to make.

Fedora's missing Chromium updates

Posted Mar 20, 2022 8:16 UTC (Sun) by oldtomas (guest, #72579) [Link]

"That is entirely incorrect."

Letter and spirit and things. You are right that this is "open source" according to the letter.

First it was "free software". Then "open source" was coined. Now I'm proposing "closed open source":

My criteria? Of course not /only/ an upstream not accepting patches. But:

- an upstream controlled by one entity with commercial interests
- making patch acceptance depend on alignment with the above
- an entity so big that it can easily outprogram any fork which might be made.

Chromium: closed open source.

Yes, Rahul, I know we disagree on such things :-)