> If they were going to rebuild it from the ground up anyway, would it really have killed them to just use Webkit?
First thing, Microsoft isn't willing to use an LGPL-licensed project. Perhaps if it was permissively-licensed, they've used BSD code before, but even so very unlikely.
Second, browsers are a crucial part of an OS. Microsoft wants to own their browser in the sense of not depending on an external development community to drive it. Microsoft has the resources to do so, so it does make sense.
Finally, even if they had used WebKit, it would have been bad for everyone but WebKit users. WebKit is already too dominant on mobile, sites only work on it, and that is a huge problem for the web. Yes, it's ironic given that IE was the previous dominant implementation. But still, we need diversity in the browser market to keep the web open, even if that diversity comes from Microsoft with it's sordid history.
First thing, Microsoft isn't willing to use an LGPL-licensed project. Perhaps if it was permissively-licensed, they've used BSD code before, but even so very unlikely.
Second, browsers are a crucial part of an OS. Microsoft wants to own their browser in the sense of not depending on an external development community to drive it. Microsoft has the resources to do so, so it does make sense.
Finally, even if they had used WebKit, it would have been bad for everyone but WebKit users. WebKit is already too dominant on mobile, sites only work on it, and that is a huge problem for the web. Yes, it's ironic given that IE was the previous dominant implementation. But still, we need diversity in the browser market to keep the web open, even if that diversity comes from Microsoft with it's sordid history.