And so? Yes people (and companies) would fork your code, but the most realistic scenario would be that the original ladybird would still be the most relevant browser of it's family, just like firefox, so the problem kinda resolves by itself
However, Konqueror/KHTML is now dead and we only have a closed source Safari.
I can't fathom your comments back to back.
As I've already stated, any company that may fork a similar project would actually cause more benefit than harm. KHTML died because the web started to get very complex very fast and KDE volounteers couldn't keep up with that pace, unlike Apple employees. Now that the web is a bit more stable, with less standards that are more thought-out (webassembly), it's a lot easier to maintain a web browser. So if tomorrow Microsoft hops in and announces it's intent to fork ladybird, then the latter would not only be fine, but it would probably recieve a new wave of contributors.
Also, its* not it's
Oh no no no. We don't need microsoft contributing anything into this. They will mess up everything and push their agenda.
Google was almost killing Go overnight because they wanted more user data from people using the language.
If your goal is browser diversity, this would take an ecosystem of 2 browser engines and turn it into an ecosystem of 4. That seems in-line with the goal of browser diversity.
Having 4 (or 3.5 more realistically) browser engines where 2 of them weaponized against its users doesn't change things.
Instead, we should have 3 (or 2.5) browser engines where only one of them is (and can be) weaponized against its users. This is what brings diversity and change.
That said, my point here was that realistically no company is going to fork ladybird since there's already chromium, plus even if ladybird was somehow forked by let's say microsoft and got popular, I don't think it would be detrimental to ladybird itself, if not even beneficial, since it would attract more users and, to a lesser extent, more contributors.