Depends on your religion, I guess.

Thank you, that helps me a lot. :-)

Other engines exist.

The current incarnation of Mozilla would not be any meaningful loss to me.

There is exactly no single reason to make this personal. What I meant is that writing a free piece of software does not necessarily have to be paid work. A variety of popular software tools, including a few web browsers, by the way, is written and maintained in the developers’ free time.

“Doing stuff” is not the same thing as “doing paid work”.

Opt-out can never be the right answer.

(and deserve it)

Please enlighten me: how do they deserve to be paid for a non-profit product?

Being a developer myself (with no ads in his software), I don’t think you understand my point. The software I write in my free time does not pay my bills. That’s why I also have an actual job.

What makes you think that developing a free web browser needs to grant anyone any income?

Mozilla actually has (had?) ads in Firefox, right on its default start page.

So is NetSurf, and has been for most of this century already. I mean, it’s great to see people even caring about independent browsers, but NetSurf surely needs much more love (and more developers). :-)

I wish that most forks wouldn’t be even worse. Pale Moon, the most interesting one, is a gang of patent trolls.

If your goal is to ever talk to people about open source software, that’s going to create a lot of unnecessary confusion.

I guess that my definition of open source is not that uncommon, given that the terms “free software” and “libre software” exist and are rather well-established by this point.

People often use the OSI’s Open Source Definition when using the term “open source”.

Which is one of the possible definitions. Mine is “you can see the code”. Everything else falls into “free software”.

I think the new one remains closed. Sadly, not locked away.

What is “actually open source”, if “here’s the source code” is not?

You can make embarrassing mistakes in virtually any programming language that’s not too esoteric.

When I still used Python for prototyping (today, I usually use Go for that), it happened much too often that I did this:

if foo:
    bar()
   foobar() # syntax error

In Lisp, however, both errors are much harder to make (not even considering GNU Emacs’s superb auto-indentation - which is what most Lispers use these days, as far as I know):

(when foo)  ;; <- obvious!
    (bar))

(when foo
    (bar)
          (foobar)  ;; <- still valid
(quux))  ;; <- also still valid

Dynamic typing is the source of very amazing errors, see JavaScript.

Feel free, it’s still out there!

I still write more Perl than Python these days.