It seems weird to run a closed-source browser on an open-source operating system when so many open alternatives exist—I certainly wouldn’t do it, and I’m a Kagi customer.
Being closed-source isn't just an ideological issue, it bring about a lot of practical issues. E..g.: distributions aren't going to package it, so users need to download the tarball and install it manually. They'll also need to manually update it (unless they're including some dedicated service?).
Then, integration with the OS will be weird. If you're distributing binaries, you can't dynamically link system dependencies (they are either bundled or statically linked). Any distribution-specific patches and fixes will be missing. AFAIK the default path for the CA bundle varies per distribution; I'm not even sure how you'd handle that kind of thing. I'm sure there's hundreds of subtle little details like that one.
The audience ends up being Linux users, who are fine with proprietary software, have time and patience for manually configuring and maintaining a browser installation, and are also fine with an absence of proper OS integration.
I think Steam is the only popular proprietary software on Linux, and they basically ship an entire userspace runtime, and almost don't integrate with the OS at all.
I hope freediver will shed some light on the open source plans, because that's a deal breaker for me too. I'm a long time paying customer and huge proponent (even evangelist) of Kagi, but a closed source browser is just too many steps backwards for me no matter who makes it.
I get (though wouldn't necessarily agree with) keeping it closed while it's still in the works, but would like to know if the plan is to open source in the future or not.
Kagi founder here. Orion isn't open source yet primarily because we're a 5-person team that spent 6+ years building this and created significant IP doing so, and we're not in a position to defend our work against a well-funded company using it as a base (we care very much about the business model of the browser surviving). Restrictive licenses help in theory but enforcing them against a company with a larger legal budget doesn't.
We also see limited upside from community contributions - the number of people who can meaningfully work on a WebKit browser is small (from our experience hiring), and most of them already work at Apple or Kagi. Meanwhile, managing an open source codebase of this size would add real strain to our small team.
The plan is however to open source when Orion is self-sufficient (business model of Orion is you are the customer and can pay for it - like we used to pay for browsers 20 years ago before advertisers started paying for our browsing), meaning it can sustain its own development independent of Kagi Search. I want to take the opportunity to thank all people who supported the Orion browser vision [1]. We're not there yet but recent 1.0 launch and expanding to Linux are steps in that direction. And on Jan 1st this year we began development of Orion for Windows (HN exclusive yay!).
I understand this is unsatisfying to people who want source access now. It's a tradeoff we've made deliberately, not something we're hiding behind.
> The plan is however to open source when Orion is self-sufficient (business model of Orion is you are the customer and can pay for it - like we used to pay for browsers 20 years ago before advertisers started paying for our browsing), meaning it can sustain its own development independent of Kagi Search.
Orion will never reach "self-sufficiency" as long as you don't actually charge for Orion. Orion is completely free to use. I can donate to Orion+, but Orion+ offers no paid features; it's basically a Patreon. https://help.kagi.com/orion/orion-plus/orion-plus.html
(No major browser has ever sustained its own development independent of a search engine's funding, not even Netscape, which charged $40/seat in the 1990s, with a free "shareware" tier so generous that hardly anyone paid. Netscape was funded by advertising, especially from Yahoo search. Funding browser development entirely on donations to a commercial business would be completely unprecedented.)
What if, instead, you made Orion "source available" to paying customers, but not open source? You could merge PRs only from users who sign a CLA. (Users would file PRs out of charity, for the same reason they sign up for Orion+ today.)
I would ignore the haters, keeping Orion proprietary makes the most sense for being able to successfully charge for it as a commercial product. You can't sell an OSS product, only supporting services, as many many startups have realized and been forced to relicense to much anger within their respective communities.
And when the market is going to be primarily technical people I don't think you can trust them/us with source-available either as hackers with a strong aversion to paying for software thinking themselves clever will make and distribute bootleg builds with the license checks removed. Then you'll have to spend your time finding and DMCAing them which will only make people mad. Best to avoid it entirely.
I appreciate you/Kagi actually thinking about building a sustainable business in contrast to companies that open source their core competency and then fail to make money later.
> managing an open source codebase of this size would add real strain to our small team
Can you please elaborate what do you mean when you say this? This is something I do not understand. How licensing terms affect your codebase management beyond setting things up so the code is available to users?
Publishing something under a FLOSS license doesn’t mean anything except that you grant end-users certain rights (the four essential freedoms). The rest (like accepting patches or supporting external developers) is customary but by no means obligatory. You don’t have a capacity for it - don’t do it, easy. There are thousands of developers who do that - they just dump whatever they have under a nice license and that’s it.
Unless you’re saying your legal department doesn’t have capacity to handle licensing concerns, especially if you’re using or potentially using non-FLOSS third party components. That I can totally understand, it could be pretty gnarly.
Please don’t be mistaken: Free Software is a purely legal matter of what you allow users to do with your work - not some operating principles or way of organizing processes.
Note: All this said, I can understand that you may not want to grant some freedoms to the end users, particularly the freedom to redistribute copies, because this could affect your plans of selling the licenses. But that’d be a whole different story than codebase management concerns.
earlier in the thread I read nhe plan was to release the source "when it has merit" But that instantly left me with the feeling that the authors of the browser, and I have very different opinions on what the word merit means. Such that they would be incompatible, and I'd never want to use it. This is a decision that has lowered my opinion about exactly how much I can trust Kagi.
> Kagi founder here. Orion isn't open source yet primarily because we're a 5-person team that spent 6+ years building this and created significant IP doing so,
But it's possible I haven't considered some detail where I might agree it's reasonable. Can you describe or offer any insight into the "significant IP" that you need to protect and defend? What threats from a larger company are you primarily concerned about?
Having access to the source is just one part of open source.
The state of webkitgtk is a bit rough, as I’m sure you and your engineers have noticed. The other part of what open source means to people is that you contribute back to the open source code you used to build your business, lifting all boats in the process.
What people certainly do not want to see is Kagi pull an Apple: utilize FOSS to the extent it helps you but return nothing but “thanks everyone but we got ours”.
Are you looking for people who worked on WebKit in the past?
I really hope you refactored WebKit's Bridge, because it allowed a lot of exploits in the past, and was neglected upstream by Apple.
When I started my RetroKit fork I was aiming to reduce that attack surface while offering farbled apis based on other browser behaviors and their profiles. [1]
My fork has been neglected a bit due to lack of time, as I'm currently still busy with other APT related things before I can get back to it.
Would love to chat whether your plan is to open source your WebKit fork, maybe there's some overlap and we can work together on it?
(I currently hope that ladybird will be getting into a more forkable and modular state, because servo passed by that goal a long time ago).
The GPL has pretty good legal precedent, and so does the MPL in the browser space (though, Firefox has mozilla behind it so it gets the enforcement benefit). If the SFC wins its vizio case, would you look into freeing orion?
We support Kagi across products. We believe alternate browser engines keep the web standard. We give more weight to that than to whether a particular browser's value add (on top of a double digit* but non-hegemonic engine) is open.
We believe software and hardware creators have a right to choose their business model and let that model compete, as Kagi's is competing right here in this thread.
* Having worked at mega banks etc., they do look at these numbers to decide whether to invest in standards support or slap on a "Requires IE" button.
Come home? It never left it. Konqueror, the software where it all started, still is a core KDE app. WebKitGTK, arguably the most portable WebKit distribution and what Orion itself uses, has always been Linux-first.
Just curious, but is this really a big deal? As a customer, you already trust Kagi enough to feed them your entire search history, so I guess you don't think they're bad actors. Thus, why you find problematic the (momentary?) "unopeness" of the browser? I'd gladly try it (I'm on Arch), even just out of curiosity (unlikely to make it my main, though).
Jeez, downvoted for asking about context? People, calm down.
Requiring it to be open source is not just about trusting the publisher. There are a bunch of other possible reasons, including wanting to support open source as a counterbalance to proprietary software.
For me, it's a big deal (although not a dealbreaker) for that reason. If I have the option of two different pieces of software, one being open source and the other proprietary, I'll choose the open source one every time unless there's something really exceptional about the proprietary one. But that's very rare.
I was just trying to think of any proprietary software I use outside of work (where I don't have a choice) or games. There must be at least one, but I can't think of what it is.
Google started as a company that seemed worthy of trust. The founders had ideals and followed them. Look what happened. Companies can turn evil surprisingly quickly. I'm also a Kagi customer, but I wouldn’t use a closed-source browser either.
Because free (as in the FSF definition) software should be a human right. We deserve to know how our tools work and be able to improve them and use them as we please. Free (as in freedom) software doesn't need to be monetarily free either. Make it so the purchase of orion comes with the binaries and a copy of the source code, or provide it on request. This has proved to be sustainable before, arguably the defacto standard for pixel art is (or was before a license change made it so you can't redistribute the source code) free software, despite costing money
Why does it seem weird? I run a lot of proprietary software on linux. Actually made a career of it. I also run a lot of open source whenever I can, but I'm pragmatic about the whole affair. I think most users are like that.
WhyNotHugo|1 month ago
Then, integration with the OS will be weird. If you're distributing binaries, you can't dynamically link system dependencies (they are either bundled or statically linked). Any distribution-specific patches and fixes will be missing. AFAIK the default path for the CA bundle varies per distribution; I'm not even sure how you'd handle that kind of thing. I'm sure there's hundreds of subtle little details like that one.
The audience ends up being Linux users, who are fine with proprietary software, have time and patience for manually configuring and maintaining a browser installation, and are also fine with an absence of proper OS integration.
I think Steam is the only popular proprietary software on Linux, and they basically ship an entire userspace runtime, and almost don't integrate with the OS at all.
freedomben|1 month ago
I get (though wouldn't necessarily agree with) keeping it closed while it's still in the works, but would like to know if the plan is to open source in the future or not.
freediver|1 month ago
freediver|1 month ago
We also see limited upside from community contributions - the number of people who can meaningfully work on a WebKit browser is small (from our experience hiring), and most of them already work at Apple or Kagi. Meanwhile, managing an open source codebase of this size would add real strain to our small team.
The plan is however to open source when Orion is self-sufficient (business model of Orion is you are the customer and can pay for it - like we used to pay for browsers 20 years ago before advertisers started paying for our browsing), meaning it can sustain its own development independent of Kagi Search. I want to take the opportunity to thank all people who supported the Orion browser vision [1]. We're not there yet but recent 1.0 launch and expanding to Linux are steps in that direction. And on Jan 1st this year we began development of Orion for Windows (HN exclusive yay!).
I understand this is unsatisfying to people who want source access now. It's a tradeoff we've made deliberately, not something we're hiding behind.
[1] https://kagi.com/stats?sub_stats=orion
dfabulich|1 month ago
Orion will never reach "self-sufficiency" as long as you don't actually charge for Orion. Orion is completely free to use. I can donate to Orion+, but Orion+ offers no paid features; it's basically a Patreon. https://help.kagi.com/orion/orion-plus/orion-plus.html
(No major browser has ever sustained its own development independent of a search engine's funding, not even Netscape, which charged $40/seat in the 1990s, with a free "shareware" tier so generous that hardly anyone paid. Netscape was funded by advertising, especially from Yahoo search. Funding browser development entirely on donations to a commercial business would be completely unprecedented.)
What if, instead, you made Orion "source available" to paying customers, but not open source? You could merge PRs only from users who sign a CLA. (Users would file PRs out of charity, for the same reason they sign up for Orion+ today.)
kuon|1 month ago
I understand your position, but a web browser is so important a software that it must be open.
I also think that you can still sell it even if it is open source.
Also, you might be able to secure funding from governments that want to move away from closed source solutions.
Anyway, still congratulation for v 1.0, and I hope it will go well.
Spivak|1 month ago
And when the market is going to be primarily technical people I don't think you can trust them/us with source-available either as hackers with a strong aversion to paying for software thinking themselves clever will make and distribute bootleg builds with the license checks removed. Then you'll have to spend your time finding and DMCAing them which will only make people mad. Best to avoid it entirely.
I appreciate you/Kagi actually thinking about building a sustainable business in contrast to companies that open source their core competency and then fail to make money later.
Source: happy paying customer and user of Orion.
drdaeman|1 month ago
Can you please elaborate what do you mean when you say this? This is something I do not understand. How licensing terms affect your codebase management beyond setting things up so the code is available to users?
Publishing something under a FLOSS license doesn’t mean anything except that you grant end-users certain rights (the four essential freedoms). The rest (like accepting patches or supporting external developers) is customary but by no means obligatory. You don’t have a capacity for it - don’t do it, easy. There are thousands of developers who do that - they just dump whatever they have under a nice license and that’s it.
Unless you’re saying your legal department doesn’t have capacity to handle licensing concerns, especially if you’re using or potentially using non-FLOSS third party components. That I can totally understand, it could be pretty gnarly.
Please don’t be mistaken: Free Software is a purely legal matter of what you allow users to do with your work - not some operating principles or way of organizing processes.
Note: All this said, I can understand that you may not want to grant some freedoms to the end users, particularly the freedom to redistribute copies, because this could affect your plans of selling the licenses. But that’d be a whole different story than codebase management concerns.
roody15|1 month ago
grayhatter|1 month ago
> Kagi founder here. Orion isn't open source yet primarily because we're a 5-person team that spent 6+ years building this and created significant IP doing so,
But it's possible I haven't considered some detail where I might agree it's reasonable. Can you describe or offer any insight into the "significant IP" that you need to protect and defend? What threats from a larger company are you primarily concerned about?
andyjohnson0|1 month ago
WD-42|1 month ago
The state of webkitgtk is a bit rough, as I’m sure you and your engineers have noticed. The other part of what open source means to people is that you contribute back to the open source code you used to build your business, lifting all boats in the process.
What people certainly do not want to see is Kagi pull an Apple: utilize FOSS to the extent it helps you but return nothing but “thanks everyone but we got ours”.
cookiengineer|1 month ago
I really hope you refactored WebKit's Bridge, because it allowed a lot of exploits in the past, and was neglected upstream by Apple.
When I started my RetroKit fork I was aiming to reduce that attack surface while offering farbled apis based on other browser behaviors and their profiles. [1]
My fork has been neglected a bit due to lack of time, as I'm currently still busy with other APT related things before I can get back to it.
Would love to chat whether your plan is to open source your WebKit fork, maybe there's some overlap and we can work together on it?
(I currently hope that ladybird will be getting into a more forkable and modular state, because servo passed by that goal a long time ago).
[1] https://github.com/cookiengineer/retrokit
mghackerlady|1 month ago
Terretta|1 month ago
We believe software and hardware creators have a right to choose their business model and let that model compete, as Kagi's is competing right here in this thread.
* Having worked at mega banks etc., they do look at these numbers to decide whether to invest in standards support or slap on a "Requires IE" button.
eviks|1 month ago
But the number of people who can contribute to the app UI is bigger, and that's also an area seriously lacking
jasonvorhe|1 month ago
sharpshadow|1 month ago
xyse53|1 month ago
EasyMark|1 month ago
SoKamil|1 month ago
BaudouinVH|1 month ago
I've been online for about 30 years, I have never heard of paying for a browser.
WD-42|1 month ago
forgotpwd16|1 month ago
Terretta|1 month ago
skybrian|1 month ago
EbNar|1 month ago
Jeez, downvoted for asking about context? People, calm down.
JohnFen|1 month ago
For me, it's a big deal (although not a dealbreaker) for that reason. If I have the option of two different pieces of software, one being open source and the other proprietary, I'll choose the open source one every time unless there's something really exceptional about the proprietary one. But that's very rare.
I was just trying to think of any proprietary software I use outside of work (where I don't have a choice) or games. There must be at least one, but I can't think of what it is.
hobofan|1 month ago
Do I? I'm not going to post sensitive information into a search engine no matter who runs it.
My search history ain't worth much. What the contents of e.g. my bank website are is.
hamdingers|1 month ago
Not necessarily, Kagi provides a feature[1] that anonymizes all your searches. I set it up and haven't thought about it since.
1. https://help.kagi.com/kagi/privacy/privacy-pass.html
globular-toast|1 month ago
Yes, it's a big deal. I've lived in the non-free software world before and struggled to get out. I'm not going back.
leephillips|1 month ago
mghackerlady|1 month ago
EasyMark|1 month ago
skylurk|1 month ago
AlienRobot|1 month ago
BoredPositron|1 month ago
pixxel|1 month ago
[deleted]
phoronixrly|1 month ago
microtonal|1 month ago