Technology

Huh? The goal of the chromium project was to facilitate a corporate browser in the first place. It's why they don't have a more permissive license. They want to be able to use everyone else's work if anyone forks it.

Permissive license doesn't mean that corporations suddenly get the ability to completely change existing work for the worse, or change its' license. They can bloody well do that with GPL too if they own the project including contributions, so it doesn't matter if it's BSD or GPL, the only protection that the open source users have, in any case, is that licenses can't be changed retroactively, so if Firefox, Chromium or Ladybird went completely closed source and proprietary today, we'd still have the right to use the code as it was yesterday. Permissive licenses just mean that someone somewhere can create a closed source build without the permission of the person or company who owns the project and that doesn't particularly matter for anyone using Ladybird or any future open source derivatives. Permissive licenses are useful for libraries, but also for software that could be bundled as part of a bigger solution. Maybe you want to embed a web browser in your proprietary application and don't want to use webview because its' usability differs platform to platform.

Also why AGPLv3 and not GPLv3? I don't think the "A" part is even necessary here, that's needed more for server side applications, I.e if the end user is using online without the code running on their own computer, AGPL is the one to use.

Anyway, in the modern age, (A)GPL is used by a shit ton of corporate software. Oftentimes with an (A)GPL open core and a bunch of proprietary functionality not included in the core. I should know, I work with one example on a near daily basis. This way, nobody can just take their core functionality and develop a closed source alternative, while they can sell you an enterprise license for full functionality on their "open source" software.