Comments on: Google grants outsider Chrome-coding privileges

Although the browser is still largely a Google project, its open-source nature is being highlighted as a University of Warsaw programmer is granted insider status.

[cnet_user_0]

As long as "insider" and "outsider" exist, it is not truly an open-source project IMHO.

[PhaseDMA]

I suppose you also think all open source software must be free.

[tm_anon]

Open Source is source that has been created by many different contributors. Open Source doesn't have to be free, but I do think every single person who had a hand in creating code should be compensated for his contribution(s) if money is being made because of them. With the current use of Open Source software, this is not the case, including Chrome. Parts of the project are Open Source, but I have yet to hear of any checks being issued for those who have contributed even though Google is making advertising money off of this project.

[Matt Asay]

Let's give credit where it's due: to create a project within a company and then open it up to outside contributors is a huge accomplishment, one for which Google should be feted. There are all sorts of management and legal issues involved, and the fact that Google made it happen, anyway, is a significant credit to the company and its open-source bona fides.

[jinzoblazer]

Yes V8 is indeed impressive, but lets not forget to give credit where credit is due. Webkit is based on the hardwork of many KDE, Apple, Nokia and Google Developers. It's easy to forget that Chrome is based off of a code base that extends back to 1999.

[forever4now]

This is one of the most valuable aspects of open source software. Anyone (professionals, students, hobbyists), anywhere in the world that has interest (and at least some talent), can participate.

This is in stark contrast to the proprietary model, where only the "select few" can participate.

Good going Google...and great initiative Pawe? Hajdan!

[tm_anon]

Googles insider/outsider view of Open Source is in essence creating a "select few" mentality. Google gets the final say and chooses who gets to work on its current pet project. The proprietary model, on the other hand, is at least open about how it is proceeding. With that being said, I don't use proprietary software unless absolutely necessary. I do believe Open Source to have more ability to adapt and to change because of its large base of contributors, hense my problem with Google Chrome. By going about "open source" in this particular way, they are limiting their contributor base. Yes, eventually this may be a good thing, but it slows the project down tremendously and they're still having problems with the browser. If they were set up more like FF, they could allow a much larger contributor base to not only write the code, but check the code, verify the code, narrow down contributions to a very small amount of viable candidates, then implement them. In essence, they could have a true open source project, created by the users for the users.

[AppleSuxLeo]

When will MSFT sue for the Chrome icon looking so much like Windows Media Player icon ?

[Dan Kegel]

Some great open source projects don't ever let outsiders commit.
For instance, the only person allowed to commit in the Wine project is
Alexandre Julliard. He has to approve each and every patch and commit it
by hand.
Chromium by contrast is more liberal; once somebody meets a set of
published criteria, they are allowed to commit directly.
Sounds good to me.

Disclaimer: I'm a committer to both Chrome and Wine...