Reading Google Chrome's Fine Print 607
Much ink and many electrons are being spilled over Google's Chrome browser (discussed here twice in recent days): from deep backgrounders to performance benchmarks to its vulnerability to a carpet-bombing flaw. The latest angle to be explored is Chrome's end-user license agreement. It does not look consumer-friendly. "By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any content which you submit, post or display on or through, the services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the services and may be revoked for certain services as defined in the additional terms of those services."
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is yet another sign of google's impending world domination. Won't be long before they own everything people use from software, to clothes, to spouses and children.
Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (Score:5, Informative)
Google has announced that Chrome is to be open source. If this has the conventional meaning of being licensed under an OSI-approved license, or anything remotely resembling one, then a EULA would be redundant and unenforceable. (Even if Google tried to exercise some implicit contractual terms around the use of Chrome, someone could simply exercise the permissions given under the open source license to repackage the code under a different name with no EULA.)
I'm not going to RTFA at this hour, but the only reasonable interpretation is that the terms in question apply only to Google's services and not the browser software itself. Anything else would be audacious even for a company without Google's mostly good reputation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (Score:5, Informative)
http://code.google.com/chromium/ [google.com]
Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (Score:4, Informative)
Valid point. More importantly,
http://dev.chromium.org/developers/how-tos/getting-started [chromium.org]
And for the impatient, here is the meat of it
gclient config http://src.chromium.org/svn/trunk/src/chrome [chromium.org]
gclient sync
Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically ... if I use their browser anything I do online becomes their property ... how is that good for me or anyone?
Actually the terms say that you grant a royalty-free licence, not ownership. It's still an unacceptable condition, but I feel the distinction is important.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the modern day that is, sadly, merely a semantic difference. If someone has a royalty-free licence to do anything with something they might as well own it and it woudln't make any difference to them or the author.
You might want to look up 'semantic' in a dictionary. It means the opposite of what you think it means.
Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (Score:4, Funny)
look up 'semantic' in a dictionary
se*man*tic
-adjective
of or pertaining to semantics.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You might want to look up 'semantic' in a dictionary.
You might want to link [reference.com] a dictionary when you accuse someone of ignorance, and quote it as well.
Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (Score:5, Funny)
Are you trying to say that it doesn't mean "bloated, ineffectual, resource hogging security software"? Maybe I have just been spelling it wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They didn't steal anything. You give them permission when you accept the license agreement and you upload something. If you don't want them to "steal" whatever, don't use their software and/or don't upload anything.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It probably doesn't count as "stealing" (especially since you can't "steal" IP, remember?), but it is certainly unconscionable and I'm confident would be ruled so by courts. It's just like those credit card agreements that say you lose all rights by agreeing to use this card. Oh, and this agreement can be changed at any time, customer to be notified by an ad in the Sacramento Penny Saver.
Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (Score:5, Insightful)
are we talking about slashdot
With respect to text or data entered into and stored by publicly-accessible site features such as forums, comments and bug trackers ("SourceForge Public Content"), the submitting user retains ownership of such SourceForge Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display content activity, such content is owned by SourceForge. In each such case, the submitting user grants SourceForge the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.
or google:
By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any content which you submit, post or display on or through, the services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the services and may be revoked for certain services as defined in the additional terms of those services.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's slightly different. Slashdot is a public forum, and it's reasonable to expect that comments could be used by /. to promote the site. Since it says the comments are owned by the posters, they should also have to properly attribute any comments they use (I'd expect; but then, IANAL).
Chrome, OTOH, might be used to post a private post to a blog — which nobody can read unless they're on a list of "allowed" people — and Google's terms of use say they claim rights to use that.
Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (Score:4, Informative)
I think that what really happened is that Google screwed up, copied their Google Apps license verbatim, and didn't think about the repercussions. A license like that doesn't even make sense in the context of a browser--it makes sense in the context of a service. It's a boilerplate bit of text which prevents me from successfully suing a company, say Slashdot, for publishing content I posted.
In other words, Slashdot's lawyers would laugh at me for even trying to sue Slashdot for publishing this particular post, which is copyrighted by me.
Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's perfectly acceptable for a web service - they all have similar clauses - and granting them some rights is even necessary, my post is intended to be public, and they do need to permission to show it to others.
It's certainly not acceptable for a browser to do with private data.
Do you really fail to see the difference, or are you just building strawmen for fun?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What part of the definition of "web browser" makes you think it's defined to be a "service"? Do you think the terms might be there to cover the cases when Chrome is used to post to Google's actual services, using the integration into Google Search, their anti-phishing list, the geolocation services, GMail, and other services that are integrated with Chrome through the inclusion of Gears?
Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the privacy policy for Chrome: http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html [google.com]
It does not mention the terms in this article, which clearly seem related to google services and not the browser.
Mind you, the privacy policy does mention unique ID's for each browser, and sending them to google every time you start the browser. Also, Chrome automatically installs a GoogleUpdate executable and adds it to your autoruns; I really hate it when applications do that. So it's still pretty bad, but not in exactly the way this "article" makes it out to be.
Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
but it takes me totally by surprise from Google
Why? I've been predicting for years the Google love will eventually start turning into hatred. We are talking about a publicly traded corporate entity with much of it's base in capitalist Amerikka here.
If Microsoft, or anyone else, released an application with a updater process that remained after uninstalling, there would be so much howling on here the thread would simply implode.
But it's Google, so people are trying to defend it by saying it's beta, but leaving out a single line in the uninstall script wo
Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (Score:5, Insightful)
The privacy policy is not relevant, the EULA is.
I work for a small codeshop that does (among other things) document management applications. Our apps have a browser-based UI, and if I'm reading the EULA right, any information (including documents etc.) used with our apps are automatically licensed to Google if the user uses Chrome.
IANAL and I hope I'm wrong, because otherwise I can't see how Chrome could be used with business applications at all.
There's a difference Chrome automatically installs a GoogleUpdate executable and adds it to your autoruns; I really hate it when applications do that.
StartupMonitor [mlin.net] is your friend.
Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think Chrome sends the stuff anywhere (see here [mattcutts.com]), but anyway, this is a theoretical legal problem translating into practice so that no company lawyer will permit any handling of company data with Chrome. This would mean that Chrome will be outright banned.
The implications of the EULA sound nonsensical, and I sincerely hope that someone will soon demonstrate how I'm wrong about this.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
but as you can compile from source using the licesne for gain is moot, meaning that the license is just there to cover their asses as the browser may not render pages perfectly and this may get them sued in sue happy America.
P.s this and all slashdot posts are held under a vitually identical EULA.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Agreed, so far I dont see anything that either Opera or Firefox can't do... not to mention that Chrome is twice the size of Opera, and almost 3 times as large as Firefox with less functionality.
Also that it installs into ..\Documents and Settings\%UserName%\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Chrome\* annoying.
From which I tried finding the EULA as was too lazy to read it during setup, and it doesnt seem to be there, nor within the application itself, seems to only be at http://www.google.com/chrome/eula [google.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You absolutely do not own posts to your blog (at least under US and Canadian copyright laws).
By what you said, when you upload to a paid host, you are adding content to THEIR webserver, the fact that you pay them has no impact on this. Google is ad-supported, so when you upload content to th
Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (Score:5, Funny)
It's really strange stuff. Someone might think that even transfers/deposits one makes while accessing own bank account also belong to Google. Or stuff someone buys on Ebay. Once on-line voting and Chrome become prevalent, Google will also become The President.
Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine an even more far fetched scenario - your company uses some kind of web mail. One could abstract that Google have some claim over any emails and attachments you send/receive through Chrome.
Clearly this is not what Google intend and they have pasted their generic EULA into place until such times as they can afford to pay for a legal representative to write a shiny new one.
Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (Score:5, Insightful)
The frequency of badsummary on this site makes me sad.
I bet the editors of this site never intended the tag system to be used primarily as a mechanism for drawing attention to their own incompetence.
Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (Score:4, Informative)
Here is the link for you: http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html [google.com] And the referenced text is there.
Misread much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Misread much? (Score:5, Informative)
Right at the beginning of the EULA you have definition of the word Service - as it is used in that document:
Google Chrome Terms of Service
These Terms of Service apply to the executable code version of Google Chrome. Source code for Google Chrome is available free of charge under open source software license agreements at http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html [google.com].
1. Your relationship with Google
1.1 Your use of Googleâ(TM)s products, software, services and web sites (referred to collectively as the âoeServicesâ in this document and excluding any services provided to you by Google under a separate written agreement) is subject to the terms of a legal agreement between you and Google.
So when in the point 9.1. they use the word 'Service' it clearly means: "products, software, services and web sites" and that includes Chrome.
Use Chromium (Score:5, Informative)
I suggest you use the OpenSource version of Chrome , which is BSD licensed and has no EULA you need to agree to.
I think they made this separation of Chrome and Chromium to keep the "Chrome" brand under their control while still making the browser open source.
Builds:
http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/
Info:
http://www.chromium.org
Re:Use Chromium (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite right.
Any specific critiques of interface of licensing seem to be moot in the long run, since the stated goal of this browser is to release better tools for ALL the browsers, including ones that are fully open source.
There's not much point in arguing how much Google might monitor or claim usage-rights over, as the obvious goal is a backbone for all browsers that makes their applications run better and gives them more potential to develop new ones. Competing with IE and FF doesn't exactly fit well in their business plan.
The real questions are, if V8 actually does blow all current JS engines away, how soon are we going to see it in a Firefox release? If the independent handling of tabs prove to be the sensible way to handle it, will it make it into FF4?
If the things Google is introducing are better, V8 should get in there quickly, but multiprocess handling of tabs and plugins, etc, will require quite a bit of work to get into existing browsers.
Re:Use Chromium (Score:4, Informative)
Considering the MASSIVE javascript speed improvements Mozilla have achieved using "hotpath" techniques, I think it's unlikely (these improvements are not yet in stable release). On the other hand, the description of V8 from the Google Comic seem to indicate that they do something along the same lines, by dynamically compiling parts of the script to "machine code" (as they say). Without specifics, it's difficult to compare the approaches, though...
And, by the way, this optimizing is also why there is "IE32" and "ARM" specific code in Chrome. There has to be. That's integral to how hotpath-type techniques work.
A turn off? (Score:5, Interesting)
Whilst the auto update feature sort of makes sense (if you discount a malicious user working out how to auto-update an installed copy with their own code), I detest ads, possibly in common with the rest of the world. Ok, it is their revenue, but it's bad enough seeing them on pages, but having them eve more targetted???
Oh yes, and the autoupdate program (googleupdate.exe) still executes at startup even after Chrome is uninstalled. I know it's a beta, but that's just sloppy.
Or is it???
Re:A turn off? (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not so much mind "targeted adds" as much as I mind "add spam". I would love to know about new electronics, new games, new guns, and who the hottest new chick is, but what I dont care about is: making $10000 a month with a home based business, mortgage rates dropping, dancing women on roof tops, or premium life insurance for the elderly. Yes, adds are intrusive, but they provide incentive for people to put up interesting web sites that I like to frequent, without having to charge me a subscription fee (not sure of any other money making model that has succeeded for web sites).
Down with "add spam"! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Down with "add spam"! (Score:4, Funny)
How to disable GoogleUpdate.exe (Score:4, Informative)
Removing might be harder (but unnecessary) than this, but the following will prevent the service from loading:
Control Panel -> Administrative Tools -> Services
Find the Google Update Service, select Properties from the right-click menu, and Disable.
I'm more concerned about this part... (Score:4, Interesting)
Burying an agreement to have spyware installed on your machine deep within obscure legalese is not something I'd have expected of Google, and there seems to be no way to disable the associated googleupdate.exe process without registry hacking.
adj: Unconscionable (Score:5, Funny)
Google lawyers may need to learn a new word that ATT was just taught... Unconscionable
So far so good. (Score:5, Informative)
From the comic it seems like Google really wants to take a new approach to how browsers deal with memory and I think Firefox could learn from that. Is that enough to make me switch? No, not at all. I rely on a number of Firefox extensions and unless Google makes Chrome compatible with Firefox extensions, or comes up with their own system and then develops a tool to auto-port Firefox extensions, I don't think a lot of people are going to switch. Back when I was running 1.5.3 (I think it was
Re:So far so good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
though to be fair, Adblock is best used if the ads are downloaded but not displayed - that way the site gets the revenue, and you automatically get to ignore the ads.
Re:So far so good. (Score:4, Interesting)
I used Firefox for years and still do to an extent, but a couple of years ago I 'saw the light' and moved to Opera [opera.com] as my default browser. It does everything I need it to, quickly and securely, it takes up much less screen real-estate, and is very customisable. It's occassionaly caught out by sites 'optimised' for I.E. (but what isn't?) but otherwise is brilliant.
LGPL? (Score:3, Interesting)
jumping to conclusions (Score:5, Informative)
I think you're jumping to conclusions; that is Google's usual "content license", and something they need in order to offer services to you. I don't know how you think it applies to the browser. If you're trying to imply that Google is attempting to claim that everything you do with Chrome belongs to them, you're wrong.
forget the fine print - it's phones home like mad (Score:5, Informative)
This thing is lighting up my firewall constantly, during install, operation and uninstall.
Even after uninstall it leaves GoogleUpdate.exe installed and running and pinging google every hour.
I'm sticking with Firefox 3.1's javascript compiler instead:
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/
Re:forget the fine print - it's phones home like m (Score:5, Informative)
Re:forget the fine print - it's phones home like m (Score:5, Insightful)
btw I am not anti-google. I use google to search for everyything, my primary email is gmail.
I also dont think Google or any company can actually do all the crazy things people can imagine when taking a EULA to extremes. EULAS aren't even worth the paper they're written on.
Boilerplate TOS (Score:4, Insightful)
I AM SO HAPPY! (Score:5, Funny)
"Posted with Chrome, edited for content by Google"
No kids allowed either! (Score:4, Funny)
Apparently kids are not allowed to use chrome.
It's not even for *all* Windows... (Score:3, Informative)
I fired up my Linux box and went to the Chrome homepage. It said "Windows only".
So, I wired up my Windows 2000 box and went to the homepage. It now said "XP/Vista only".
Why couldn't they have said that on the Linux version? It would have saved me a frustrating fifteen minutes of crawling around plugging inn video cables.
stop spying on me (Score:3, Funny)
In Soviet America, Google Chrome surfs you!
Terrible license agreement (Score:3, Insightful)
As other posters have pointed out, the Chrome privacy policy [google.com] seems to make section 11 moot as it implies that Google will not collect information other than what is required to actually run the browser. So while they assert a royalty-free perpetual license to some content, Google states that they are not capturing the content.
Several other web-based services have a similar license agreement. Generally, the reason why Google's standard Terms of Service requires a royalty-free license is so they can syndicate and publish content you decide to distribute using Google's services. This doesn't necessarily seem applicable to using a web browser. However, even if the content in Section 11 should be included, there are a couple of extra phrases that Google has that other companies do not include. And they make a real difference with other services like Picasa Web Albums.
One extra phrase that Google includes in their Terms of Service is "promote." Other companies, like Yahoo and Apple, do not have this clause. To me, this implies that Google can use your content in advertisements for free. Another clause gives Google the right to share your content with business partners for the provision of syndicated services. Again, this could be for promotional reasons; you might end us having your content used in advertisements for Google's business partners, especially as the reasons for sharing the content are not well defined in the Terms of Service.
I wrote a comparison of the Google Picasa Web Terms of Service [samgreenfield.com] against similar companies. No other company seems to grab the promotional rights to your material in the same manner that Google does.
Google can fix this problem for Chrome. Other services, like YouTube and Blogger, have much more specific terms of service that ameliorate the problems of Section 11 of the Google TOS. However, the better solution for Google is to fix their TOS in the first place to only grab the rights required to run their products.
another reason not to use chrome (Score:3, Informative)
about:plugins
ActiveX Plug-in
File name: activex-shim
ActiveX Plug-in provides a shim to support ActiveX controls
Straight from Google's legal team... (Score:4, Informative)
Rebecca Ward, Senior Product Counsel for Google Chrome
Re:It wont even install for me (Score:5, Informative)
Prepare to be even less impressed and look at the V8 src, they only have codegen for ia32 and arm. Plenty of hardcoded platform specific (windows) guff in the browser codebase too.
This stuff might have been acceptable in 2003 but it's -DEPIC_FAIL for 2008.
guff? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:guff? (Score:5, Informative)
Please do feel free to look up [google.com] any short, monosyllabic, four letter words that are above your level of reading comprehension.
"Growser" is currently Windows only. It's got hard coded registry access and other such retardation throughout the code. Where you might think lib/ the chromium developers think chrome_dll/ and so on.
Re:guff? (Score:5, Funny)
It's language, Jim, but not as we know it.
Re:guff? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It wont even install for me (Score:5, Funny)
Damn them for not making their codebase absolutely perfect from day one! Software should spring into life fully formed, like Athena from Zeus' forehead!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You mean that's *not* what happens when I run "svn checkout" ? Lies! Damn lies!
Re:It wont even install for me (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It wont even install for me (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn them for not making their codebase absolutely perfect from day one! Software should spring into life fully formed, like Athena from Zeus' forehead!
Actually it should. It's not in vogue right at the moment but it's called testing BEFORE release. Do you really think for more critical stuff that the developers can afford to release untested crap and say "oh well it's beta"? Think of mission critical stuff - aircraft and spacecraft, power industry, telecommunications. Okay a web browser doesn't deserve quite the same level of scrutiny, but obvious bugs should be eliminated on day one. It USe to be common practice to at least try to do so, and failing to do so use to be an embarrassment. Now it's just business as usual. (By the way Google would have a lot more credibility using the term if their "beta" software didn't stay in beta for years)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They stay in beta until they have a 50%+ market share at which point they decide they are probably doing half decent and throw an official release party.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
actually, i think Southwest uses shareware.
the aircraft takes off just fine. but instead of the landing gears deploying you just get a scrolling message asking you to register the software.
Re:It wont even install for me (Score:5, Funny)
Gosh, you would think this was beta software or something.
I want my money back.
Re:It wont even install for me (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup. Call it "beta", and you can get away with anything. Especially after their cool comic book bragged about their advanced testing techniques that put everyone else to shame.
Re:It wont even install for me (Score:4, Insightful)
After playing with it a bit, I'd say it is far more stable than either Safari Beta or Mozilla Beta was. I think it even beats out IE 7 Beta (I didn't play with 8). It has fewer features, though.
Still, pretty impressive for a first release.
All I know... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It wont even install for me (Score:5, Funny)
Congratulations - you just set the Slashdot record for the least comprehensible post ever.
Here, I'll translate that for you:
(1.000 times 10^100, swap position of o/l, o -> e) has machine language instructions encoded by a compiler which first ran through a preprocessor from some characters saved in a file in physical memory that a lot for the (opposite of hard) + ware on faster than walking on an operating system that has a penguin as a mascot (not technically because Linux is just the kernel, but I will let that slide). It seems [to the GP poster] like half their (not the penguins) stuff they (result of incontinence) through alcoholic beverage.
Re:It wont even install for me (Score:5, Funny)
Don't take it personally, but I can't have any respect for people (or their opinion) who use the phrase "epic fail"...makes one sound like those immature "cool" kids on the web.
Epic fail.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Google describe Chrome as 'multi-platform [blogspot.com]'. They also say that they're tailoring each version to the platform it runs on, so that it doesn't have the 'rough edges' that (for example) Firefox and Safari have.
Re:It wont even install for me (Score:5, Informative)
Worked fine for me on XP x64. Probably something wrong with your system.
That said, I uninstalled it immediately due to some big annoyances:
1) I could not find a download for a local installer, instead it forces you to download an installer stub that downloads and installs the browser.
2) It did not let me choose where to install it. Instead it automatically installed into documents and settings\user\local settings\application data\google without so much as a prompt.
3) It added a "Google updater" to my startup programs without asking me if that was ok or even telling me about it.
4) When I uninstalled it, it didn't remove all of its files and didn't even clean out the startup entry for the aforementioned updater. I had to remove those things manually.
Sorry Google, I don't like it when software tries to take control away from me and doesn't notify me of system changes. These are the kinds of things that will keep me far away from Chrome.
Re:It wont even install for me (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Great License Agreement (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The US is a strange place. People here want freedom from the goverment and have this idea in the back of their heads of some sort of Matrix style world springing up anyday.
I remember when I moved here from Russia 5 years ago and mortage, loan, cell-phone, health insurance etc. In many ways I felt far less "free" than when living under communism (if I didn't pay $x every month I would be locked up and left to rot!).
We pride ourselves on "freedom" form the goverment but our Corporation's on the other hand imp
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
TVery few places in the world can a company sue you just for quiting your job.
It's still an improvement compared to the time when slaves who quit their job were hunted down with dogs.
(Yes, I'm aware this joke is going to cost me karma.)
Re:Scary (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you think google are just using the information "to allow you to customise things and target ads towards you" then you're having a laugh.
At least government is bound by freedom-of-information acts, elections etc. so we can actually find out about things like RFID tags. There's absolutely no way to tell what Google are up to with the data.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm. Which government is this, bound to follow their own laws? The police state is spreading through the western world, and I'm not seeing many governments willing to be constrained anymore.
You've mixed up Chrome and Chromium (Score:5, Informative)
Chrome is Google's private, closed-source browser. Chromium is the open-source (BSD-licensed) project from which Chrome takes some of its code. Chromium is completely non-operational at this point in time (ie. it doesn't run), as it's very early days on the open-source project. Chrome in contrast is very nicely operational already, since its code is not the same as that being put together by the Chromium folks.
And the key point here is that Chrome and Chromium have completely different licenses, therefore your comment is entirely worthless.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Which EULA would that be? The one linked in the article? Oh wait, the article doesn't actually link to any EULA.
Chrome's "EULA" may be found here [google.com]. It consists principally of this sentence:
The Chromium software and sample code developed by Google is licensed under the BSD license.
No, that's the terms for Chromium. You seem to have it confused between Chrome, the product, and Chromium, the open-source browser project.
The EULA for Chrome, however, is available here [google.com].
Re:404 (Score:5, Funny)
It blocks Slashdot? It is a bigger success than I thought!
The 404 Horses of the Apocalype (Score:5, Funny)
Re:404 (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google was marketed as the company that was "different". Fixed that for you.
It is impossible for a 'good' company to exist/survive in a market that is ruled by (capitalist) laws of competition and profit.
CC.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Google is a commercial enterprise... 'nuff sed.
To elaborate...Google is an advertising and marketing company!! Everything they do, is directed towards knowing the consumer. This EULA is genius...and so is this product (the browser). What better way is there of harvesting consumer information? Create a browser, say you have royalty-free license to everything that goes through said browser. This is a like striking gold for an advertising company. It is essentially spyware, only made by Google so it's good...right?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1. BETA..Beta..BETA (although their use of "Beta" is a bit stretched I know).
If you discuss license agreements with a lawyer, I don't think saying, "This is a beta license agreement" will carry much weight. If you agree to a contract, you are agreeing to the contract, warts and all. It's also worth noting that services like Gmail are still in "beta."
2. Complain, email, Complain!! - Google DOES listen generally (they may not write back, but people do pay attention)
I posted a question on Google groups a week or so ago and have now sent two email messages about the TOS. No response on the Google group; no response to the email messages. As you point out, they may be paying attention, but it's a bit