Readit NewsExpurple commented on AI overviews cause massive drop in search clicks arstechnica.com/ai/2025/0... · Posted by u/jonbaer
> independent from Google
Not really: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38253384
Unlike Firefox, Safari has another huge corporate backer (Apple). Apple is drowning in cash. They don't need Google's money to keep developing Safari. It's "just" a good, low-effort deal for them. Apple doesn't have a competing search engine, or an intention to develop one, or an intention to promote a free web and "save" their users from a search engine monopoly.
Expurple commented on AI overviews cause massive drop in search clicks arstechnica.com/ai/2025/0... · Posted by u/jonbaer
Google stopped being a search engine long time ago.
Now it's the worlds biggest advertisement company, waging war on Adblockers and pushing dark pattern to users.
They've built a browser monopoly with Chrome and can throw their weight around to literally dictate the open web standards.
The only competition is Mozilla Firefox, which ironically is _also_ controlled by Google, they receive millions annually from them.
Technically, Safari is a bigger competitor than Firefox, and it's actually independent from Google. But it's not like it's better for the user...
Expurple commented on In the long run, GPL code becomes irrelevant (2015) josephg.com/blog/in-the-l... · Posted by u/Expurple
They don't tend to "kill" the original, they just force them into "source available" licenses. Wikipedia has stuff like MariaDB, MongoDB, Sentry, Redis, etc. as some examples.
If I understand correctly, Redis-the-permissive-project wasn't threatened by any proprietary fork. What happened is that the financials of its original authors were threatened by AWS hosting Redis as a service. It's not the same as a modified proprietary fork becoming more popular than the original.
Redis was relicensed as "source available", and then that license change led to a fork. But the most prominent fork isn't proprietary. It's a permissive one, called Valkey: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44653130. That's actually a good example of an in-demand permissive project changing maintainers and staying relevant under a permissive license.
An interesting thing to see in the future is whether Redis ("source available" + AGPL) or Valkey (permissive) "wins" in the long term.
Too lazy to google the details regarding the other projects.
Expurple commented on In the long run, GPL code becomes irrelevant (2015) josephg.com/blog/in-the-l... · Posted by u/Expurple
You've been very diligent in replying to the detractors in this thread, but I have yet to see any compelling examples.
You say that there are plenty of examples of copyleft projects being overtaken by proprietary versions that then create network effects that end up being worse for the end user because the original project was copyleft. You further assert that if the original project had been permissively licensed, this wouldn't have happened.
I'm unaware of this ever happening. Can you list a few of the examples you had in mind?
> I have yet to see any compelling examples.
This thread has eventually changed my own stance on permissive licenses. Now I think that LGPL/MPL have the best survival characteristics: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44657017
> Can you list a few of the examples you had in mind?
As I think about it, I see that I wrote "plenty of examples" mechanically (pulled it out of my ass). Sorry :)
That entire argument of mine is stupid because it hinges on the ability to see alternative universes:
> if the original project had been permissively licensed, this wouldn't have happened
I could pull any unpopular GPL project as an "example" (that would be more popular with a permissive license because "trust me, bro"). But that's a bad argument.
Expurple commented on In the long run, GPL code becomes irrelevant (2015) josephg.com/blog/in-the-l... · Posted by u/Expurple
They might decide to rewrite an lgpl project, but there is a massive sunk cost. At the point they make the decision the gpl project is less tempting to bring fully in house.
(L)GPL:
- Investing $3M to extend.
- Would cost $17M and 3 years to re implement to baseline and then extend.
- Lose all community development inputs because new solution is fully in house.
Permissive:
- Investing $3M to extend.
- Would cost $0 and 0 years to keep in house and still extend
- Keep 100% of community development inputs initially and potentially forever if they are able to extend in a way that avoids conflicts. Can port most community developed features with some effort.
Ok, I have thought more about the topic. You're right. LGPL/MPL have amazing survival characteristics. Probably better than those of permissive licenses. See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44657017
Expurple commented on In the long run, GPL code becomes irrelevant (2015) josephg.com/blog/in-the-l... · Posted by u/Expurple
Indeed, MPL/LGPL are often a better tradeoff than GPL.
But, in theory and according to the article, they should experience same effect. Just slower. When a (law-abiding) company finally has a strong reason to make some modification and keep it private, a proprietary replacement is coming. (Sometimes, as a "thin" fork of a permissive project, which then gets an engagement boost, reinforcing the point of the article)
Ok, I have thought more about the topic. I was too concerned with "theory" in the above comment. Disregard it.
Web engines are a huge practical example in favor of MPL/LGPL. They suggest that MPL/LGPL may indeed have the best survival characteristics.
Companies love proprietary browsers. If there were a good-enough permissive web engine, a proprietary fork would happen and "win", even if as "a set of patches" on top of a permissive base maintained by the community for free. Luckily, the creators of FOSS web engines seem to have understood that and chose MPL/LGPL. This goes against the article.
Companies love proprietary browsers. They will never contribute to a GPL web engine. That's why we don't have any good GPL web engines. This supports the article.
Companies love proprietary browsers. Microsoft was one of the first movers on the web. They had the chance to create a competitive proprietary web engine from scratch. It was popular for a few decades. But eventually Microsoft gave up and adopted Chromium instead. Presumably, to reduce maintenance costs. It doesn't seem like their proprietary engine gave them any competitive advantages that would be worth the cost. This supports the article.
So, the article is correct regarding GPL and proprietary, even (indirectly) predicting the continued absence of GPL web engines and the death of proprietary web engines. In 2015, when the article was written, IE was still bigger than Firefox and Safari on the desktop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers
But the article completely misses the huge success of MPL and LGPL. You are 100% correct.
Expurple commented on In the long run, GPL code becomes irrelevant (2015) josephg.com/blog/in-the-l... · Posted by u/Expurple
I feel like a massive counterexample here is embedded. Hardware companies tend to laugh at maintenance (it's expensive and extends the life of their products, so you don't have to give them money as often). If Linux was not GPL, many embedded platforms like routers or smartphones would not have kernel code available.
That's a good counterexample! If you don't need to maintain the code, then a proprietary fork has no maintenance cost and will be preferred.
I guess, the atricle still stands where you need to maintain the code.
Sync between devices is a compelling reason to have some backend. But I prefer it the way Super Productivity does it: integrating a bunch of third-party storage services like Dropbox. Usually, you already use one anyway