Good morning to everyone who says “searching” and not “googling”.

[thepfromtheo@social.vivaldi.net]

@SuperDicq @Vivaldi

Why not?

[superdicq@minidisc.tokyo]

@ThePfromtheO@social.vivaldi.net @Vivaldi@social.vivaldi.net Because you don't release the source code of your browser.

[thepfromtheo@social.vivaldi.net]

@SuperDicq @Vivaldi
Really?
https://vivaldi.com/source/

#VivaldiBrowser #VivaldiTechnologies #Vivaldi #browser #browsers #mobileApp #AndroidApp #dataCollection #identification #browser_identification #privacy #dataPrivacy #privacyMatters #FOSS #openSource #openSourceProject #openSourceProjects #checkYourself #closedSource #sourceAvailable #sourceCode

[superdicq@minidisc.tokyo]

@ThePfromtheO@social.vivaldi.net @Vivaldi@social.vivaldi.net I thought Vivaldi did not publish the full source code of the application including the UI, but only published the changes it made to Chromium? Did this recently change?

[thepfromtheo@social.vivaldi.net]

@SuperDicq @Vivaldi

Not very sure but it looks like that

[superdicq@minidisc.tokyo]

@ThePfromtheO@social.vivaldi.net @Vivaldi@social.vivaldi.net Both Wikipedia and Vivaldi's own website explicitly mention that about 5% of the source code is missing.

Vivaldi has even posted essentially the same blogpost about it multiple times. It contains various invalid and cope excuses for why that is the case.

https://vivaldi.com/blog/vivaldi-browser-open-source/
https://vivaldi.com/blog/technology/why-isnt-vivaldi-browser-open-source/

If you actually care about your users, you should give them the full source code with a free software license, no exceptions.

[thepfromtheo@social.vivaldi.net]

@SuperDicq @Vivaldi
Then, what about the #sourceCode #website?

#VivaldiBrowser #behindVivaldiBrowser #VivaldiTechnologies #Vivaldi #codeSource #software

[superdicq@minidisc.tokyo]

@ThePfromtheO@social.vivaldi.net @Vivaldi@social.vivaldi.net Like I said. That's not the full source code, parts of it are excluded.

[thepfromtheo@social.vivaldi.net]

@SuperDicq @Vivaldi

Gonna ask.

[thepfromtheo@social.vivaldi.net]

@SuperDicq @Vivaldi

No, not all the #UI #sourceCode is published, because they #protect it (otherwise it would be taken by others and they would lose their main #sellingPoint).

P.S. I'm not happy to say this, but this is the #truth...

#VivaldiBrowser #VivaldiTechnologies #Vivaldi

[superdicq@minidisc.tokyo]

@ThePfromtheO@social.vivaldi.net @Vivaldi@social.vivaldi.net Yes, and that's exactly why I posted what I did.

Vivaldi is not a company that cares about its users, privacy or freedom. They are not fighting for a better web, all they are doing is making the web more locked down and taking more control away from the user. All of this that is being claimed on your website and it is just marketing and not reality.

I really hope they change this policy and publish the full source code at some point. Because if they do Vivaldi can actually start hanging out with the big boys like Firefox or Chromium.

I really want to drive home the point that you currently have more restrictions than the bigger players in your field, that actively blocking distribution maintainers from properly implementing your software. That is really bad.

Trust me when I say that there is currently an entire world of free and "open source" people like me out there who are probably willing to switch to Vivaldi but are unable to, just because of they are being extremely greedy with a very small, but important part of the codebase.

Something like this can be changed very easily too. All you have to do is add a license file to the repo and click on "publish".

So why not do it?

[thepfromtheo@social.vivaldi.net]

@SuperDicq @Vivaldi
“I really hope they change this policy and publish the full source code at some point. Because if they do Vivaldi can actually start hanging out with the big boys like Firefox or Chromium.”

#Vivaldi's answer on this: “But, the way we see it, Vivaldi is more than just its code. It is our brand, with associated trademarks we have to protect. This means any fork needs to be branded as a different product.

And this new product then would become an immediate competitor without putting any significant technical work to reach that status.”
https://vivaldi.com/blog/technology/why-isnt-vivaldi-browser-open-source/#:~:text=But%2C%20the%20way,reach%20that%20status.

“a very small, but important part of the codebase.”
That's the whole point of it

And yes, this can be done very easily, but, as they said, there's no coming-back. They don't only have to think about the ease of doing something, but also about it's (long-term) consequences.

#VivaldiBrowser #VivaldiTechnologies #Vivaldi #VivaldiBrowser #VivaldiTechnologies #Vivaldi #browser #browsers #mobileApp #AndroidApp #dataCollection #identification #browser_identification #privacy #dataPrivacy #privacyMatters #FOSS #openSource #openSourceProject #openSourceProjects #checkYourself #codeSource #software

[superdicq@minidisc.tokyo]

@ThePfromtheO@social.vivaldi.net @Vivaldi@social.vivaldi.net

This means any fork needs to be branded as a different product.

That's fine, Firefox is the same.

And this new product then would become an immediate competitor

A fork that uses the same codebase is not really a competitor. You can share code between forks, so it also benefits Vivaldi to have forks available.

And if you maintain your software well and do what your users want, there would be no need for anyone to make a fork in the first place.

These are not not valid reasons.