Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Project & Funding Model

  • Independent browser engine forked from SerenityOS, now a US 501(c)(3) nonprofit.
  • Seeded with a $1M donation plus earlier sponsorships (e.g. Shopify); currently ~3 engineers, growing to ~6.
  • Goal: small, lean team with ≥1.5 years runway, funded only by unrestricted donations (no search deals, ads, tokens, or other “user monetization”).
  • First “alpha” for developers targeted for ~2026; many see this as either realistic or too slow.

Goals vs Existing Browsers

  • Aim is a fully independent engine, not a Chromium/Firefox fork, to increase engine diversity and test web standards.
  • Strong emphasis on standards correctness and interoperability, while still pragmatically matching real‑world browser quirks where needed.
  • Early focus on making core developer sites (GitHub, MDN, specs, HN) work well to attract contributors.

Technical Choices & Language Debate

  • Core is ~500k lines of “modern C++” inherited from SerenityOS.
  • Team plans a gradual transition to a memory‑safe “successor language” (unspecified), with prototypes in several languages.
  • Huge subthread debates C++ vs Rust (and others), memory safety, performance, parallelism, and the dangers of full rewrites vs “Ship of Theseus” refactors.

Licensing & Forking Concerns

  • Code is 2‑clause BSD; maintainers explicitly prefer a permissive license and accept the possibility that others may fork and outpace them.
  • Many commenters argue for GPL/AGPL to prevent proprietary EEE‑style forks, citing KHTML→WebKit/Blink as a cautionary tale.
  • Others counter that permissive licensing maximizes adoption and that more engines—even corporate forks—still help diversity.

Privacy, DRM, Ads, and Extensions

  • Strong stated stance against monetizing users; desire to push more aggressive privacy protections than ad‑funded vendors can.
  • Ad blocking and extension support are considered essential; users especially request good tab management, password managers, and uBlock‑like capabilities.
  • DRM/EME/Widevine stance is unresolved in the thread; several argue that supporting DRM undermines the open web, others say lack of it hurts adoption.

UX, Branding, and Community Infrastructure

  • New site and logo draw heavy criticism as “soulless” and corporate compared to the older, charming ladybird branding; designer also receives some praise.
  • Use of GitHub and especially Discord for coordination is controversial; some push for open forums/mailing lists/Matrix, others defend pragmatic use of convenient tools.
  • Accessibility (screen readers, OS a11y APIs) is raised, but concrete plans remain unclear.

Enthusiasm vs Skepticism

  • Many are excited by a non‑ad‑funded, user‑centric engine and see it as spiritual competition to Chrome and a corrective to Mozilla’s perceived drift.
  • Skeptics question feasibility given the complexity of modern browsers, small team, limited funding, security risks, and long timeline.