Linux Foundation Launches Pay-to-Play, Inclusive "Supporters of Chromium-Based Browsers"
The Linux Foundation launched “Supporters of Chromium-based Browsers,” a new initiative ostensibly to fund and enhance Chromium projects. However, the video’s host expresses strong skepticism, highlighting several key points:
-
Lack of Actual Linux Involvement: This is yet another Linux Foundation project seemingly unrelated to Linux, continuing a trend of minimal Linux-focused spending despite substantial funding.
-
No Change to Chromium Governance: The initiative creates a new organization under the Linux Foundation, but leaves existing Chromium governance structures untouched. Chromium itself remains under the control of Google, etc.
-
Selective Participation: Major Chromium players like Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Opera are involved, but notable Chromium contributors like Brave and Aalia are absent, suggesting a lack of genuine open-source inclusivity. Brave’s CEO, Brendan Ike, explicitly states they couldn’t get a non-pay-to-play membership.
-
Suspiciously Convenient Timing: The launch coincides with the Department of Justice’s antitrust case against Google, which may lead to Google being forced to divest from Chrome.
-
Open Washing Suspicions: The host alleges this initiative is “open washing”—using open-source rhetoric to mask continued corporate control over Chromium, potentially as a preemptive measure against the DOJ’s case.
-
Potential for Linux Foundation Chrome Control: The host speculates that this initiative could position the Linux Foundation to take over Chrome if Google is forced to sell it, given the Foundation’s resources and connections to the involved corporations. The fact that it’s a pay-to-play model further supports this theory.
-
Lack of Transparency: The “Supporters of Chromium-based Browsers” website offers minimal information, reinforcing the host’s suspicion of hidden agendas.
In short, the video argues the initiative is a thinly veiled attempt by major corporations to maintain control over Chromium under the guise of open-source collaboration, potentially to preempt the consequences of the DOJ antitrust lawsuit. The host emphasizes the lack of genuine open-source participation and the suspiciously convenient timing as key indicators of this alleged maneuver.