Whats with all these fake statements?...Google Chrome isn't open source

Why the hell is Chrome presented as open source? It isn't...Chromium is.

Originally posted by operaterrestrial:

Why the hell is Chrome presented as open source?

Where?

http://ostatic.com/blog/chrome-15-arrives-as-open-source-browsers-get-down-to-brass-tacks
"Increasingly, there are good arguments for using both of these open source browsers."(talking about Firefox and Chrome)
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/fresh-take-on-browser.html
"As you may have read in the blogosphere, we hit "send" a bit early on a comic book introducing our new open source browser, Google Chrome."
and many more....

Google Chrome's source IS open. It's called Chromium. There is no difference in the bedrock source code between the two. Google bundles a few extra bells and whistles like an integrated PDF reader and support for some proprietary audio formats - which by the way are all available as plugins on Chromium - and calls it Chrome. So yes, Google Chrome is open source. You can call it open source plus, the plus being for additional plugins it includes.

What is the big deal, anyway?

Originally posted by operaterrestrial:

http://ostatic.com/blog/chrome-15-arrives-as-open-source-browsers-get-down-to-brass-tacks
"Increasingly, there are good arguments for using both of these open source browsers."(talking about Firefox and Chrome)

You can't just use the Firefox name and iconography without permission either. Perhaps Chrome has a couple more things than Firefox by default, but hardly enough to classify is as closed.

Strangely, Safari is also partially open-source (the "webkit" rendering engine, derived from khtml and in fact shared with Chrome). But does anyone consider Safari as open-source?

Originally posted by sgunhouse:

Safari is also partially open-source. But does anyone consider Safari as open-source?

Agree with your point here. Even Opera uses some open-source components like the GStreamer multimedia framework and some others. But we all know that Opera isn't open-source.

In simple terms, a browser who's complete source code is available officially and permission to modify it (although not using any trademarks of the developer company) is granted by the developer is called an open-source browser. Mozilla Firefox and Google Chromium and their several modifications like Lunascape, Maxthon, Pale Moon etc. are the only browsers to fall under the open-source category.

Websites saying that Chrome is open-source are incorrect. Although I know why they might have written that. Chromium is Chrome without some features like Adobe Flash Player built-in. So getting access to and modifying Chromium's source code is equivalent to getting Chrome's source code and modifying it.

Originally posted by sgunhouse:

Strangely, Safari is also partially open-source (the "webkit" rendering engine, derived from khtml and in fact shared with Chrome). But does anyone consider Safari as open-source?

With Safari we're talking about the entire GUI and it's only the Webkit part that's open-source. With Chrome the difference consists of a couple of bundled plugins and codec(s). Flash is just as closed-source when bundled as when installed separately. I suppose it depends a bit on how integral you consider certain features to be.

Originally posted by Swapnil99pro:

Websites saying that Chrome is open-source are incorrect. Although I know why they might have written that. Chromium is Chrome without some features like Adobe Flash Player built-in. So getting access to and modifying Chromium's source code is equivalent to getting Chrome's source code and modifying it.

If having access to Chromium's source is equivalent to having access to Chrome's source, how exactly does it follow that Chrome isn't open-source?

Originally posted by Frenzie:

If having access to Chromium's source is equivalent to having access to Chrome's source

There is a difference between equivalent and equal. Chromium does not include Adobe Flash Player built-in, does not support Auto-Update and does not implement user RLZ tracking (No user RLZ tracking is the reason Chromium is more privacy-friendly than Chrome).

All the rest is same between Chrome and Chromium.

Since when is the flash player a 'built-in' part of any browser? Don't confuse 'built-in' and 'ships with'.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Don't confuse 'built-in' and 'ships with'.

I am not confusing them. A 'ships with' thing can be un-installed. However, Flash Player cannot be un-installed from Chrome, just like a 'built-in or integrated' thing, it can be only disabled.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Since when is the flash player a 'built-in' part of any browser?

Since Google did that in 2010.

I know this is old but I found this trying to answer that very question, to be on the safe side.
I think it's worthless to compare something that "has" open source components to real open source because almost everything does. Even IOS is built around an open source kernel.
I think a good measure of real open source is community driven, and without hidden spyware and processes in the background, which is pretty much the opposite of nearly everything google provides. Even a rooted android device tends to little more than a real cool carrier for googles hidden processes and spyware, sucking up info. Some people don't get this because they start with open source, but the google layer you need to put back on to get the APIs and functionality so much rely on is completely closed source and spyware laden, throwing "open source" philosophy out the window, but since people willingly put it back on maybe it makes them feel better (it seems designed so even after rooting you will choose to put the closed source, backdoor push-capable google spyware-laden components back on or you break API dependencies, compatibility and functionality).
Why some think things like android and chrome are open source might be because google is very very tricky probably, and spends a lot of marketing and manipulations to give people these false impressions and a false sense of security and privacy. Since google provides "free" products maybe people just assume.

Originally posted by whattup:

I think a good measure of real open source is community driven, and without hidden spyware and processes in the background, which is pretty much the opposite of nearly everything google provides. Even a rooted android device tends to little more than a real cool carrier for googles hidden processes and spyware, sucking up info.

Also note the difference between free and open-source. Hidden spyware goes against free software at least in spirit, while hidden spyware is probably perfectly compatible with open-source.