[ugh]

More … how? What matters is the engine, who cares about the chassis? It would be truly idiotic to include Chrome but to exclude Safari. That just does not make sense.

Sure, more of Chrome’s chassis is open source (though not really), but who the hell cares about that? All things considered, Safari and Chrome are both pretty open source. What matters, anyway.

[Pewpewarrows]

If all that mattered was the rendering engine, then Chrome would never have gotten more than 1% browser marketshare, and Firefox would reign supreme. It's pretty obvious to anyone that's paid attention over the last few years that the surrounding UI, Javascript engine, and experience encapsulating the rendering engine is just as important, if not more so.

With Chrome basically the entire UI, including preferences, extensions engine, syncing, and automatic and partial updates are completely open source as part of the Chromium project. Chrome merely puts the Google logo on the cover and packages some pieces of software that can't otherwise be distributed due to licensing constraints. Developers don't consider Ubuntu closed-source just because it has the ability to package closed-source software and drivers with it.

In short: there's no way you can consider Safari an open-source project. There are several ways to classify Chrome as open-source, to which many developers agree.

[skroth]

I do? I think the parts of the browser that aren't the rendering engine are important too. That being said, I honestly don't really care about the original argument. I agree that Safari should be included as open source.

My point was just that I think Chrome is measurably more open source. I know that's vague and you can quantify by number of lines, whatever. Since Chrome is "more" open source, wouldn't someone be able to fairly draw a line that includes Chrome but not Safari?

In my mind where one draws that line is completely subjective. I think where you draw the line is equally subjective.

The part where you were treating Chrome and Safari as equal in terms of open-souce-ness is what I disagree with.