←back to thread

"Begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"

(developer.chrome.com)
552 points freedomben | 2 comments | 11 Oct 24 14:20 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
neoromantique ◴[11 Oct 24 14:29 UTC] No.41809782[source]▶
On Mac OS: https://kagi.com/orion/
replies(5): >>41809839 #>>41809841 #>>41809858 #>>41810701 #>>41815612 #
codetrotter ◴[11 Oct 24 14:36 UTC] No.41809839[source]▶
From the Orion FAQ:

> Is Orion open-source?

> We’re working on it! We’ve begun with some of our components and intend to open more in the future.

> Forking WebKit, porting hundreds of APIs and writing a browser app from scratch has been challenging for our small team. Properly maintaining an open-source project takes time and resources we’re short on at the moment, so if you want to contribute at this time, please consider becoming active on orionfeedback.org.

replies(2): >>41809872 #>>41810049 #
madeofpalk ◴[11 Oct 24 14:57 UTC] No.41810049[source]▶
Isn't Webkit GPL? How is it not open source?
replies(3): >>41810159 #>>41810181 #>>41810261 #
1. codetrotter ◴[11 Oct 24 15:08 UTC] No.41810159[source]▶
https://webkit.org/licensing-webkit/

WebKit is part LGPL, and part BSD.

So I think from purely a licensing point of view, they are probably not in violation. Provided that the way they are linking the LGPL-licensed code is compatible with the LGPL.

But like the other commenter said, I too would not run any web browser that was not fully open source, like this Orion browser.

replies(1): >>41811143 #
2. madeofpalk ◴[11 Oct 24 16:54 UTC] No.41811143[source]▶
If they are forking Webkit, like they say, doesn't that require they distribute the source to their fork? Even if they don't have to distribute the browser linking to it?

Or do I not understand the obligations of LGPL?