Google Updates Chrome's Terms of Service 318
centuren writes "In response to the reaction to Chrome's terms of service, Google has truncated the offending Section 11, apologizing for the oversight. The new Section 11 contains only the first sentence included in their Universal Terms of Service, now stating: 'You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.'"
Google Chrome (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well that sounds reasonable. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure I've copied/reused code. But when I do I usually make sure I understand what it does and works correctly. I also don't work for a mega corporation that has entire brigades of lawyers to get paid to look at these very things. Google apparently didn't understand what it meant nor had any of the many lawyers who get paid to look at these types of things actually look at it.
Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do keep in mind that the thing is barely in beta. They're not really releasing it to the public. Besides, it's basically unenforceable, since the code is under a BSD license.
Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (Score:5, Informative)
It's available for download on their main page. This seems to me that they really are releasing it to the public.
Chrome code not public! (Score:5, Interesting)
And what's this "installer" program to download the browser for you, why not just give us a download link to the browser itself? Furthermore, the browser will also *update* anytime it feels like it. Afaik there's no way to deactivate this *feature*.
I'd love to see a site dedicated to compiling daily builds of the Chromium source code, maybe through in some forks by private fiddlers, because right now following the instructions from the link requires you to use a non open source tool "gclient" to download about 500MB of source and then compile it using M$ Visual Studio - and then hope it produces a working binary (oh, and have the time for this). So far I couldn't find anyone doing this and putting the binaries online yet - not even using google
Re:Chrome code not public! (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it seems that gclient is open source (python source with Apache License 2.0) and you can get source for it with a simple
svn co http://gclient.googlecode.com/svn/trunk [googlecode.com] gclient-dev
For more information, see http://code.google.com/p/gclient/wiki/StartingDevelopment [google.com]
Re:Chrome code not public! (Score:5, Informative)
I'd love to see a site dedicated to compiling daily builds of the Chromium source code
You can download snapshot of the latest version of Chromium for XP from the buildbot here : http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/chromium-rel-xp/ [chromium.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'd love to see a site dedicated to compiling daily builds of the Chromium source code, maybe through in some forks by private fiddlers, because right now following the instructions from the link requires you to use a non open source tool "gclient" to download about 500MB of source and then compile it using M$ Visual Studio - and then hope it produces a working binary (oh, and have the time for this). So far I couldn't find anyone doing this and putting the binaries online yet - not even using google ;)
As already mentioned the gclient tool is open source. Since its written in Python its distributed as source code anyway and the code is under the Apache 2.0 licence.
As for 'hope it produced a working binary', I compile Chromium for the first time from SVN yesterday without any hitch whatsoever. And yes, my binaries are online.
A bit off topic but.. (Score:3, Interesting)
IMO this is evidence that Google has not developed any kind of interesting OS, otherwise the Linux version would have been out first. WHY?
Any OS developed by Google would surely be non-windows based and likely linux-based with their intimate development expertise on that platform.
With independent processes running each tab, and a lightning fast JS execution engine, the logical approach for OS development would be an active-desktopesque interface for KDE or Enlightenment or Gnome etc.
Instead of having multi
Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (Score:5, Informative)
No, the *code* is under a BSD license, one of the things about BSD style licenses is that the binaries can have whatever license you want (see OSX).
Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (Score:4, Informative)
One of the key differences between the BSDL and the GPL is that the GPL has a clause saying that you may not impose any conditions on the code not present in the original license. This is what made it incompatible with the Apache license (v3 allows a small list of extra conditions you may impose). The BSDL allows you to take the code and distribute it in source or binary form, with or without extra conditions, as long as you retain the copyright notice. This is one of the reasons why things that are dual-licensed under the BSDL and the GPL are stupid - the conditions imposed by the BSDL are a subset of those imposed by the GPL, so you can trivially include BSDL code in a GPL'd work - no one would ever choose to use the work under the GPL because it grants them no extra rights.
If you take a BSDL work and distribute it under a more restrictive license, then people are unlikely to actually use your code unless you modify it first, of course, since they can get the less-restrictive-licensed version and use that instead. If you make changes, people have to decide whether your improvements are worth giving up some rights in order to use. One example of this is a FreeBSD-derived operating system whose name escapes me at the moment which is used for router platforms. It is provided in binary-only form, and costs a small amount (I think it's free for individual use). If it has features you need that aren't in FreeBSD, then you can either pay someone to add them to FreeBSD, or buy a license for this platform and then be locked in to a single supplier for support.
Re: (Score:2)
it's right under the search bar on their main page
I understand that there is a difference between releasing an OS and having a browser set as default and adding a link on your main page to your browser, but at which point can we start discussing that this is in the same ballpark.
Google has a serious hold on the search market, just as Microsoft has a serious hold on the OS market (which its losing). Isn't putting a link to your browser on your main search page just a little bit in that gray "leveraging" area?
Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Firefox, Opera and Safari use Google as default search engine and don't include MSN Search as an option. [blogspot.com]
Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because MSN search quite frankly sucks. It's a reasonable decision from the perspective of marketing, not to even offer a bottom-barrel service as an option. If MSN were better, it would be an option.
And Microsoft knows it. There's a reason MS tried to buy Yahoo!, and put forth such a serious offer that it caused a small political drama in the Yahoo! board of directors when Yahoo! refused...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I got the impression that chrome went to almost-ridiculous lengths to suggest I use a search service other than the one which is, quite frankly, the clear industry leader.
Of course I want to use google for search! Have you tried MSN? Duh...
Not that I'm a google fanboy at any rate; I respect their work but retain healthy skepticism; even to the point that I don't use chrome solely because google may be watching. I still think that they are careful about showing the appearance of "leveraging", to the p
Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (Score:5, Informative)
More information here [scroogle.org] and here [scroogle.org].
Firefox search plugin available too, but some links to it don't work.
Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (Score:4, Interesting)
What does the tilde mean? I've seen it a lot lately.
Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (Score:5, Informative)
Some people are trying to make it a new punctuation mark to indicate sarcasm.
Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, if you're only talking to stupids...
The more intricate and hard-to-discover humor is, the funnier it is for the persons who actually get it. Dumbing it down to reach a wider audience lessens the impact. If you don't get it, accept it.
Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (Score:5, Funny)
Some people are trying to make it a new punctuation mark to indicate sarcasm.
Sarcasm markup? Now, that's useful~
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Almost too reasonable (Score:3)
Well that sounds reasonable.
Whenever a company can alter a previous agreement, declare all changes retroactive, and require me visit a webpage constantly as the method of notification, then reasonable is the first word that springs to my mind too.
fire them indeed (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing is, the language itself was not the most offensive part of this.
What is most offensive is the way these bastards write these absurdly one-sided "agreements", assuming the benefit that if anything is unenforceable it will only selectively be struck, and just pass off their standard shit with every single product assuming nobody will ever read it.
Good thing we have the internets to call them on it this time, but shame on them for doing it in the first place. And not just google, but damn near every tech company. The only reason they fixed it was because the high profile of the product. It's still evil.
Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (Score:5, Funny)
"We apologise again for the fault in the
TOS. Those responsible for sacking
the people who have just been sacked,
have been sacked."
Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (Score:5, Funny)
"The directors of the firm hired to amend the TOS after the other people had been sacked, wish it to be known that they have just been sacked."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (Score:4, Funny)
"No realli! She was Karving her initials Ãn the mÃÃse with the sharpened end
of an interspace tÃÃthbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law -an Oslo
dentist and star of many Norwegian mÃvies: "The HÃt Hands of an Oslo
Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge MÃlars of Horst Nordfink"... "
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, Ok, I'll stop
Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (Score:4, Funny)
Instead, this thread has been completed in an entirely different style at great expense and at the last minute.
The Producers would like to thank The Forestry Commission Doune Admissions Ltd, Keir and Cowdor Estates, Stirling University, and the people of Doune for their help in the making of this thread.
The Characters and incidents portrayed and the names used are fictitious and any similarity to the names, characters, or history of any person is entirely accidental and unintentional.
Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
JOHN GOLDSTONE & "RALPH" The Wonder Llama
EARL J. LLAMA
MIKE Q. LLAMA III
SY LLAMA
MERLE Z. LLAMA IX
Directed By
40 SPECIALLY TRAINED
ECUADORIAN MOUNTAIN LLAMAS
6 VENEZUELAN RED LLAMAS
142 MEXICAN WHOOPING LLAMAS
14 NORTH CHILEAN GUANACOS
(CLOSELY RELATED TO THE LLAMA)
REG LLAMA OF BRIXTON
76000 BATTERY LLAMAS
FROM "LLAMA-FRESH" FARMS NEARE PARAGUAY
and (apologies to)
TERRY GILLIAM AND TERRY JONES
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Reasonable? The only reason they responded was for PR purposes. Corporate lawyers are paid to protect the interests of the company, not copy and paste boilerplate.
They knew exactly what they were doing. The didn't get away with it. End of story.
Just because something is "free" doesn't mean you have to give your rights away. What is this world coming to??
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What Will Firefox Fanboys Do Now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, nice try troll. It was a genuine concern. The clause had the potential to be a huge land grab. It's hard to say whether it was an accident or they really got the message but it's been fixed. It's not the only time it's happened. I seem to remember both Apple and MS trying that sort of thing in the past, it's a bit easier to believe that Google just made a mistake though.
Firefox users are not going to switch to Chrome. It's just inane to suggest that's the case. It doesn't run on anything other than Windows at this point, and it looks like it's going to be a pain to be ported to anything else.
On the resource side of things, they're going to have to make a significant amount of improvement to be competitive with Firefox on performance. Sure web surfing is apparently faster, but that's against the 3.0 release and neglects the impact of memory hogging and the tweaks coming down the pipe in 3.1.
Or to put it another way, it's premature to suggest that Chrome is going to be stealing Firefox users. More likely they'll be stealing IE users away. Might very well slow adoptin of Firefox, but it's unlikely to make a significant impact.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What Will Firefox Fanboys Do Now? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm running xp-64 and run Chrome just fine.
Re:What Will Firefox Fanboys Do Now? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've used nothing but Firefox for years.
I switched to Chrome, and I'm not looking back. It's that much better.
So, it's stolen *one* Firefox user.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I used AdBlock Plus, Pennypacker, and FxIF.
But Chrome is so much better I can live without those for the time being.
Re:What Will Firefox Fanboys Do Now? (Score:5, Informative)
If you use Privoxy [privoxy.org] you can have Chrome with ad blocking as well. Works like a charm for me. Credit to this blog [fritscher.ch] for pointing me in the right direction.
Denny
Re:What Will Firefox Fanboys Do Now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Firefox users are not going to switch to Chrome. It's just inane to suggest that's the case. It doesn't run on anything other than Windows at this point, and it looks like it's going to be a pain to be ported to anything else.
The vast majority of Firefox users are running Windows. I don't see the lack of other platforms making much difference here.
Or to put it another way, it's premature to suggest that Chrome is going to be stealing Firefox users. More likely they'll be stealing IE users away. Might very well slow adoptin of Firefox, but it's unlikely to make a significant impact.
The factor you seem to be ignoring is that Firefox users are more likely to be early adopters. So I think they are more likely to at least try Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
yea, i really couldn't see google using that part of the agreement to "steal the copyright of users" as everyone seemed to be suggesting. it just seemed like they were trying to protect themselves against liability for their online services, many of which deal with the reproduction, manipulation, and public displaying of user-contributed content. facebook has similar clauses in their user agreements as well--as do i'm sure most social networking sites.
Re:What Will Firefox Fanboys Do Now? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not the only thing that prevents Firefox users from using chrome. The other two big things are the lack of add-ons and Windows exclusivity, both subject to change. As soon as Chrome has a decent enough equivalent to Adblock and Noscript, and maybe better keyboard-only navigation, I'll be all over it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Spamming every news and discussion board on the Net with fake hysterics over that simple cut and paste mistake was the only thing the Firefox fans could try to do to stop the flood of people dumping Firefox for Chrome?
I still can't picture Chrome actually causing a 'flood' of people instantaneously dumping any browser. It's neat, but not that exciting.
Re: (Score:2)
TOS (Score:2, Funny)
Just when I want to start thinking about them as evil, they have an outbreak of common sense and do the right thing.
Oh well. I still think they're too big and have too much of my data stored away, but I'll let go of the paranoia. Until the next time. :-)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
While I believe that it could be a mistake on their part. The fact that it was "an oversight" doesn't make sense to me. I mean if they just took some boilerplate EULA, then obviously a lot of thought didn't go into it. But if they wrote it from scratch, then I'd think that they were trying to get away with something, or that not everyone at Google agrees on not being evil.
Re:TOS (Score:5, Insightful)
They took the standard EULA that they use for everything, and slapped it on - it was the easiest thing for the programmers to do at the time, no thought required, just use the standard legal mumbo-jumbo. An understandable mistake, and they've corrected it.
Re:TOS (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, that's what a boilerplate is for. For pretty much any other service they have it would have been fine. Or at least in keeping with the competition.
The only reason why it's a problem is because this is one of like two things they're providing where it's not appropriate. Google has a much larger number of projects for which a clause like that is pretty much mandatory to provide the service.
Re:TOS (Score:5, Informative)
Corporations just don't copy and past legal stuff -- EVER.
As a past member of three corporate legal departments, I'm ROFL at this quote. Most contracts start as boilerplate and only get changed through negotiation between the parties.
Re:TOS (Score:4, Funny)
I have a copy of the PC game Morrowind whose EULA explicitly prevents me from using it.
I'm pretty sure it's down to copy-paste.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, I agree. Google employs many lawyers. One of them MUST have signed off on the TOS before it went live. This was a conscious decision. Corporations just don't copy and past legal stuff -- EVER. Someone in Google liked the original TOS.
Kinda doubt it. Lawyers are rarely involved in the quality and release process. Not unless there is a debate or concern and they are called in by someone more involved with the product.
They would have certainly approved a boilerplate at some point, and would usually be called in if someone actually noticed the problem and wanted to modify it. But I have never heard of any tech company including legal in the test and release process as a standard practice.
Also, getting marketing, testers and developers to
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't worked with too many corporate legal departments. Those guys are masters of grabbing something that's close, giving it a quick scan for the previous parties' names, and presenting it as a beautiful contract that they spent all night getting just perfect for you.
Corporations copy and paste legal stuff all the time. In my experience, that's the normal mode of operation
Re:TOS (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the OP had it right, its just an "outbreak"... saying a sudden outbreak is redundant.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outbreak [merriam-webster.com]
Main Entry:
outbreak
Function:
noun
Date:
1602
1 a: a sudden or violent increase in activity or currency
b: a sudden rise in the incidence of a disease
c: a sudden increase in numbers of a harmful organism and especially an insect within a particular area
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+outbreak [google.com]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/outbreak [reference.com]
etc, etc...
So do they... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, assume yes, otherwise they'd get just a slightly bad image from the public maybe? (ignoring they'd do the moral thing anyway).
Have to remember also, it's just as boring to write these things as it is to read them. Apparently they did a copy/paste of the old ones, hence the initial blunder.
Re: (Score:2)
The change is supposed to be retroactive, according to their blogger. Since Google is the party giving up a contractual right, they are barred from enforcing that right based on estoppel.
Re:So do they... (Score:5, Informative)
[so do they] relinquish rights to the stuff that may have been created before the update?
No, they said that this change would be applied retroactively.
...right, and since "retroactively" means [answers.com] "Influencing or applying to a period prior to enactment", that would make the answer yes, not no. How did this get moderated informative?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see your point. My assumption was that since JeremyBanks said "they" to mean "Google", that he would also have thought Leptok (the OP) meant "Google".
It was complicated just trying to agree with you. Pronouns are the devil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now if only the uninstaller would really uninstall (Score:4, Interesting)
If you uninstall Chrome, it leaves a few google'isms behind...
Like googleupdate and a few other registry entries... /sigh...
time to reload Winbloze...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So basically you're saying it doesn't pass Mirosoft application certification procedures?
What a surprise.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
while yes, that was implied, I was actually stating that google left major chunks behind, running and collecting information to send to the mothership...
most applications may end up leaving an abandoned entry in the registry - not full paths in your local applications area, with entries in the startup....
ie - and to a poster further down... yes - I submitted a bug report regarding the uninstall that didn't actually uninstall....
Re:Now if only the uninstaller would really uninst (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Urgh. You may be using a different Windows to me. Let me describe my last 24 hours in 5 sentences:
- Uninstalled Visual Studio 2005.
- Installed Visual Studio 2008 overnight.
- Launch VS2008 to start a C# project; this fails, and VS2008 tells me I need to install it *again*.
- Open the add/remove programs control panel, and click "Uninstall/change" on VS2008.
- VS2008's update program crashes before giving me any options.
I'm now wedged without a development environment,
Re:Now if only the uninstaller would really uninst (Score:4, Interesting)
Did you file a bug?
That was easy.... (Score:2)
You must agree to.... [CLICK] (Score:5, Insightful)
See.... nobody, not even Google themselves ever reads the freakin' legal boilerplate crap you have to click on to install software.
But.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But.. (Score:5, Informative)
Why is this modded "Funny"? The code is under a BSD license. You can do exactly that.
Heck, I'm surprised there's no community project out there to provide an EULA-free Chrome fork.
Re:But.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Heck, I'm surprised there's no community project out there to provide an EULA-free Chrome fork.
2 main reasons. Right now, Chrome is essentially Windows only, and as we know, most people who use Windows don't care about EULAs. And secondly, Chrome isn't used much, right now people are wondering if it is the future or nothing more then a nice experiment, if Chrome stays around then expect Debian to fork it like they did with Mozilla. If it dies, expect a very small fork to continue development of it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm sure "Chrome" is trademarked, and Google would certainly enforce its trademark if it chose to. This would be one way to sort of enforce the EULA: Don't allow the recompiled versions to be called Chrome.
Linux distros are undoubtedly going to want to compile their own version, in addition to wanting to be free of the EULA (which is non-free).
I wonder what Google will do about this? They either have to ditch the EULA (at least for linux), or be content with a re-branded version of their browser being bundl
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure "Chrome" is trademarked, and Google would certainly enforce its trademark if it chose to.
So, just like Firefox a.k.a. Iceweasel.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, I wonder what they'll call it ... Rust?
Re:But.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sane legal system please?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sane legal system please?? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's never been used in court. There's no requirement that the courts approve every legal document before it's made public.
This is already a major concern with EULAs, actually -- there are restrictions on how much you can really sign away, especially if it's a document that you don't sign, that nobody witnesses, that you only sort of have an opportunity to disagree with, and that everyone knows that nobody reads. Many clauses in EULAs are assumed not to be able to hold up in court. The likelihood that this one would be is slim at best (considering they have no way to track what information was posted using Chrome, that it's enormously wide-sweeping, and it's trivially circumvented by downloading the source and compiling).
Re:Sane legal system please?? (Score:5, Informative)
Can't we have a legal system that would just dismiss something so ridiculous and unreasonable???
This actually happened just the other day. A court in Washington state struck down [arstechnica.com] the AT&T long distance Terms of Service. The court ruled that the TOS was "'unconscionable,' meaning that no reasonable individual would have agreed to them had he or she realized their full scope." (quoting from the Ars Technica story).
A PDF of the decision is here [wa.gov]. The interesting bits seem to start around page 23 or so, though my eyes glazed over fairly quickly.
-- Laura
Don't be silly (Score:5, Funny)
All this is scaremongering. Your confidential business data, bank account details, personal preferences in pornography, medical records and DNA sequence are strictly a matter between you and Google's marketing department, and no-one else. Remember, they're not evil! [today.com]
Re:Don't be silly (Score:5, Funny)
Legality (Score:3, Interesting)
Secret Sauce (Score:5, Funny)
1. Loudly complain about annoying features in the beta stage
2. Watch as company removes said features because they're in vulnerable position
3. Rinse and repeat on other products
4. Realize why so many corporations fight for control of the media
5. Start your own local newspaper
6. ?
7. Go out of business because nobody reads newspapers anymore, you moron
A victory for common sense (Score:3, Insightful)
The cynics may say that they only backed down from their powergrab due to the media attention, the optimists may say that they did it because Google always listen to their customers, and the rest of us may not care *why* they did it, either way we finally get a cool new browser to play with, without risking our privacy in the process, and there's one less stupid EULA in this world.
Now, if only Apple would let me use iTunes to develop biological WMDs...
Endangered species (Score:2, Interesting)
i tried Google chrome for 4 hrs, then i saw that everything was logged !!
uninstalled & they asked why ?!
I typed STOP COLLECTING MY DATA,,
back Firefox. at least i can reduce the amount of data that are being used via gmail or other g services.
ex of Google analytic options:
*** Share my Google Analytics data...
With other Google products only
Enable enhanced ad features and an improved experience with AdWords, AdSense and other Google products
by sharing your website's Google Analytcs data with other Google s
What I don't get... (Score:3, Interesting)
... is why there are legal types out there that continue to slip these clauses or sections into legal agreements in the first place. Are they really that stupid that they think that as many times as these terms have been ferreted out and publicized that anyone is going to think "well, okay, I guess it's all right this time"? They don't understand that there enough people on the Internet that there will never be a time when there's no one looking for and exposing these sort of legal shenanigans.
Re: (Score:2)
This is pretty crazy... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm still not interested in installing it because they didn't change the bit about how they can send all usage data to them for monitoring, and that's just a bit too scary when you realize Eric Schmidt regularly meets with the head of the NSA.
The question is... (Score:2, Informative)
Why is there an EULA in the first place? The only difference between Google Chrome and Chromium is a build switch [chromium.org], so anyone can reject the EULA and compile their own versions, even if they can't redistribute the Chrome builds due to trademarks.
The BSD licence includes a disclaimer from liability when using the software, so no EULA is required for this. Google's online services have an EULA when you use them, but this isn't necessary for an open source browser.
Maybe, Google are concerned about their privacy
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why's isn't Chrome's source readily available? Instead, "Chromium", the OSS project that Chrome is "based off of", is open. That's a distinct difference to me. Is no one else skeptical?
Oh, for the love of God. Either you believe that they're actually providing the source or you don't. If Google was explicitly saying that this was the Chrome source code, you'd be crying, "But how do we know that's the source they really built it from????". Ridiculous.