[tolmasky]

Yes that is the misunderstanding, I do agree with him (you can see another response to him here where we continue agreeing: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5214213 ). I was not correcting him by saying "Here's another way to think about it", I was offering another interpretation of why kenjackson is right by looking at the case of mobile in particular.

I chose to focus on mobile for iOS precisely because here you have the greatest example of how open source is helpless and irrelevant. Even if Apple were to satisfy all your requirements for WebKit being open source, you still would not be allowed to compile it and ship it in your app, let alone modify it and ship it. Even if I write the best browser ever for iOS, I am not allowed to ship it on iOS. This is why I keep coming back to it not mattering whether you can or can't fork WebKit for iOS, just like it doesn't matter whether you can or can't write a completely new engine from scratch for iOS, just like it doesn't matter whether you can or can't fork FireFox for iOS: due to the nature of the platform, the web is closed on iOS PERIOD. Apple is THE gatekeeper of all features that enter the iOS web. Continuing to agree with kenjackson, that is why he is right that a better runtime or plugin system are ultimately more important for the web to be open than source code being released: as long as I can have a direct relationship with the user where they can install a plugin and modify the behavior of their browser, then there is a shot for non-dominant market players to always influence the direction of the web (the same way Adobe created the video revolution of the web without needing to own a browser or a cell phone or any other way of forcing people to use their tech).

I was really confused why you kept arguing with me about how open source WebKit is when my point was "whether or not its open source and you can fork it, it doesn't matter because the web is closed on iOS for deeper reasons".