Friends of Mozilla certainly control Rust, and it is not outside the realm of possibility for Rust to switch to an awful license. It may be a bit much to suppose that Rust devs would sabotage Ladybird but certainly there is a potential conflict of interest that should be looked at.
>At this point, Ladybird has no competitors because it is not much more than a hobby project. It isn't usable yet.
Whether or not it is usable is a temporary technical issue. It absolutely is a contender for mindshare. Lots of people want a browser that isn't controlled by a nefarious advertising megacorp, and Firefox is about the only game in town. That is hopefully going to change.
Anyway, it would be a good thing anyway because "friends of Mozilla" are likely some of the most dedicated FOSS people working in software.
> it is not outside the realm of possibility for Rust to switch to an awful license
It is absolutely outside the realm of possibility. It is as impossible as Python or any other major language doing it. Millions of lines of Rust are in production at for-profit and non-profit orgs, as well as in FOSS projects.
Even if they did it, Rust would be immediately forked and continue as it was before under a different name.
> Whether or not it is usable is a temporary technical issue.
I disagree. It is a long-term technical issue, because every viable browser engine so far has had many millions of person-hours put into it. Ladybird isn't close and likely never will be.
