126
Waterfox to integrate Brave adblock engine, with search ads enabled by default (alternativeto.net)
submitted 5 days ago by commander@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml
33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] mrnobody@reddthat.com 97 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

God, it's not hard to read an article instead of speculate in the comments.

"The new built in blocker will use Brave’s adblock library and run in Waterfox’s main browser process rather than as an extension. Kontos says this should make adblocking faster, more tightly integrated, and less dependent on extension APIs or constant upstream updates."

He also said Brave’s library was chosen partly because its MPL 2.0 license is a better fit for Waterfox, while deeper integration with a blocker like uBlock Origin would be more complicated because of its GPLv3 license.

Waterfox will still make one exception by default by allowing text ads on its default search partner page, currently Startpage, as a way to support the browser financially. The team clarified that this is Waterfox’s own revenue decision and not something inherited from Brave’s adblocking technology. Users who want stricter blocking will be able to disable all ads with a single setting, while people who already use third party blockers can keep using them as usual.

This, to me, is fine, because I change the default regardless. There's nothing stopping anyone else from doing the same. Sure, this could potentially open the door for additional "greedy" decisions down the road, but let's not jump to conclusions.

[-] danielquinn@lemmy.ca 64 points 5 days ago

The aversion to using a GPL library is a red flag for me. It basically says: "we don't want to grant our users the same rights we have".

[-] eleijeep@piefed.social 39 points 5 days ago

It's a bit more complicated than that because MPL is itself a weak copyleft license that requires that the MPL licensed source code is always made available to recipients of a binary or derived work. The difference from GPL is that it does not require that all additional parts of the derived work are also licensed under MPL, (ie. not viral copyleft) meaning that the MPL licensed work can be linked with proprietary code without requiring that the proprietary code make its source available, but unlike BSD or MIT licenses it does not allow the MPL licensed code to be made proprietary.

The complication comes when linking MPL code with GPL code, even though MPL is GPL-compatible, since this requires that the entire derived work must now be made available under the GPL, while the original MPL licensed parts become dual-licensed under both MPL and GPL.

If Waterfox developers allowed this then it would prohibit the use of the whole derived work in proprietary projects (as they would now need to be GPL), so it would be removing rights that they have already given to downstream users of their code. Proprietary projects would therefore have to remove the GPL licensed additions (in this case it would be the UblockOrigin code) and link just the MPL licensed parts, which would mean using only part of the whole browser.

Personally I agree with you: I prefer GPL licensed projects. But MPL is not a bad license and I can understand and respect that some developers would make that choice (especially since the project is already licensed under MPL as it's a fork of Firefox).

[-] moopet@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago

Why do we care about proprietary projects again?

[-] eleijeep@piefed.social 1 points 3 days ago

Well personally I don't, but I'm not the copyright holder of the Firefox codebase.

[-] Vincent@feddit.nl 7 points 5 days ago

AFAIK MPL is viral, but only at the file level. In other words, if you modify an MPL-licensed file, your modifications need to be MPL-licensed, but if you add additional files, those can be a different license.

(In practice, I suppose that that's fairly weak?)

[-] Dremor@lemmy.world 8 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I think you misunderstood what "viral" mean in that context.

If a file, under GPL, is added to a project, the whole project becomes dual licensed under the original licence plus GPL, which propagate to the whole project, like a virus. I know comparing it to something like a virus sound derogative, but this is the best way to describe its effect.

If a file, under MPL, is added to a project, the project do not become MPL, only the added part is. Said project cannot change the MPL licensed part to another licence, but still can build anything it wish using it.

Globally, a GPL licensed project protects the user more, but also prevent the devs from doing a lot of thing, which MPL does not.

In the end, this is the devs freedom to chose which licence they wish to publish their code under, not ours.

[-] Vincent@feddit.nl 1 points 4 days ago

That sounds like exactly what I meant; where the GPL is viral on the project level, MPL is viral on the file level. So if code, under MPL, is added to a file, that whole code becomes MPL.

[-] Dremor@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Personally, I wouldn't call it "viral" if it does not propagate to other files. It may create a confusion.
On the other hand, I don't think there is an agreed upon terminology to describe it, so if my explanation help someone better understand the concept, I'm all good.

[-] Vincent@feddit.nl 1 points 3 days ago

That makes sense!

[-] SMillerNL@piefed.social 10 points 5 days ago

Since it’s Firefox based, do they even have the option to release their software with GPL components?

[-] Pika@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I don't believe they do. I'm pretty sure since its a soft fork and still has firefox as an upstream, that they would need the permission of any contributor that had agreed to the MPL license, and that would include the Mozilla project, and it's very unlikely that Mozilla would agree to that.

They would be better off using a dual MPL GPL license, but that would only be able to be done on software that isn't baked into the core browser/as a secondary plugin or library so it doesn't trigger GPL requirements on the rest of the project, so its unlikely that they could have it as integrated as they do with that type of licensing. (nor am I sure that the GPL even would allow it in the first place as GPL doesn't allow for relicencing to a stricter license. )

[-] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago

I don't see how not, but I'm not a lawyer. From my perspective only Waterfox's edits would actually be GPL anyway, since they don't own copyright to Mozilla. If they wanted to integrate their work upstream that would be an issue

[-] hornedfiend@piefed.social 31 points 5 days ago

I'm glad I stuck with Librewolf.

[-] 20cello@lemmy.world 30 points 5 days ago

That's bad

[-] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 9 points 5 days ago

I am concerned but is there enough information here to know it’s bad?

Braves Adblock is generally very good as i recall. Traditional adblockers block content that is already downloaded while brave blocks it from using bandwidth at all. (Please correct if wrong)

Its the other toxic and malicious crap it does and the far right sympathies that are its real problems.

[-] ptmb@piefed.zip 26 points 5 days ago

Braves Adblock is generally very good as i recall. Traditional adblockers block content that is already downloaded while brave blocks it from using bandwidth at all. (Please correct if wrong)

This is wrong, almost all reputable ad blockers block specific known problematic domains or endpoints from being reached altogether, nothing is downloaded. You can check this in the most common blocking rules out there, such as EasyList.

This was also the drama about chrome deprecating manifest v1, which allowed for more of these rules dynamically, and in which Google forced extensions for the Chrome browser only to follow a more limited approach in manifest v2, but still network blocking.

[-] 20cello@lemmy.world 16 points 5 days ago

Its the other toxic and malicious crap it does and the far right sympathies that are its real problems.

Yeah,this,I don't like it

[-] gravitas@lem.ugh.im 23 points 5 days ago

I miss when people made web browsers without appeasing advertisers. Remember when mozilla introduced the popup blocker and netscape actually incorporated that into their mainstream product? You never see stuff like that anymore because advertisers control everything on the internet now.

[-] Liketearsinrain@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 days ago

They (used) to be owned by an advertising company. Use librewolf

[-] brianpeiris@lemmy.ca 11 points 5 days ago

I don't quite understand the concerns in the comments here. The original blog post seems reasonable: https://www.waterfox.com/blog/15-years-of-forking/#what-waterfox-is-in-2026

[-] PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 11 points 5 days ago

Haha, Im here for people flipping out comments :)

[-] lukalix98@programming.dev 8 points 5 days ago

What does this mean? Waterfox turning into Brave-like browser, which is Chromium, but for Mozilla forks?

[-] OccasionallyFeralya@lemmy.ml 15 points 5 days ago

All it means is that it has an integrated ad blocker now.

[-] Willoughby@piefed.world 6 points 5 days ago

toss

Next!

[-] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 5 days ago

I'm not sure if I like this. I hope it can be configured in about:settings.

[-] eleijeep@piefed.social 6 points 5 days ago

Personally I don't want any ad-tech related code in my browser, unless it's for blocking ads and tracking scripts.

Allowing ads on startpage probably doesn't really entail that though. It's probably just a simple rule adding an exception to the blocking rules.

It's not a good precedent though. If I was a Waterfox user, I'd be uneasy about this.

[-] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 5 days ago

I am a Waterfox user. I am uneasy about this. Especially given that it's Brave Browser code. Fuck that company.

[-] iturnedintoanewt@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

I'm gonna guess "very probably", but just like most recent changes in Mozilla Firefox too... It's really not looking good.

[-] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 days ago

FFS I switched last week

[-] frizop@lemmy.world -2 points 5 days ago

So long waterfox! Get fucked!

[-] Nyadia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 5 days ago

https://youtu.be/9h9wStdPkQY

this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2026
126 points (97.7% liked)

Linux

63789 readers
388 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
nooter692@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz