I don't understand that argument, IE was a closed source browser, Chromium is BSD-licensed. If anything the closest comparison is probably the widespread use of Linux.
BSD licensed browser can become a closed source browser with just a hand waive.
Imagine this: Chrome has 80% share and introduces a new feature that works only in chrome (let's say, some DRM to watch YouTube videos), and cites this as an excuse to close sources. Then, it starts updating it's own websites with specific code that can run properly only in new (proprietary) versions of Chrome.
Of course, outcry in tech press, but average Joe User does not care, he just needs stuff to work. Then, developers say, screw it, we just need stuff to work for users. Just like they did in 2004. This is a very crude model, reality will likely be more subtle, but I hope you get the idea
> BSD licensed browser can become a closed source browser with just a hand waive.
So can a Mozilla licensed browser, the licenses are very similar.
> Chrome has 80% share and introduces a new feature that works only in chrome (let's say, some DRM to watch YouTube videos)
This already exists, it's called Widevine and browsers download it as a binary blob.
This is also a different argument, Chrome vs Chromium. If there was a healthy ecosystem of Chromium-based browsers then one vendor not playing by the rules would have limited impact.
> So can a Mozilla licensed browser, the licenses are very similar.
So, you were talking about not understanding why a mono-culture is bad. So your license argument here means you don't understand the parent.
"BSD licensed browser can become a closed source browser with just a hand waive."
This means that once FF is no more, what's stopping Google from slowing closing off even more parts of the browser to just Chrome? They can start forcing their will with their control over Chromium. They make the rules. And the BSD license can't do anything to stop it. That's the point.
And because these other browsers invested into Chromium, simply forking and continuing work on their Chromium version becomes more and more challenging without massive financial support. Only a few companies can do that.
Look at Apple and Safari. Safari lags behind Chrome in many areas. And this is Apple, not some small startup.
> once FF is no more, what's stopping Google from slowing closing off even more parts of the browser to just Chrome?
Nothing is stopping. In fact, they already do that with Android. Starting with version 5, AOSP barely improves, but they add more and more and more proprietary APIs like Firebase, severely limit background apps, pushing developers to use proprietary push notifications, with each release more and more functions are tied to Google Play Services. [0]
> And because these other browsers invested into Chromium, simply forking and continuing work on their Chromium version becomes more and more challenging without massive financial support. Only a few companies can do that.
Sure, I don't see why Mozilla can't do that, especially combined with Microsoft, Vivaldi, and Opera. Right now they're going it alone and are losing marketshare.
This of course, assumes that Google decides to do this and destroy any user trust, which would result in an immediate fork of Android and potential EU antitrust action.
What I'm suggesting may not be ideal, but it's realistic. Mozilla is losing share, even after the massive Quantum rework it continues to decline. Developers don't like working with it because it's a complex codebase.
