backtop


Print 52 comment(s) - last by rosoft2001.. on Sep 8 at 10:20 PM

Company says it never intended to use customers' data

Google will change the EULA for its Chrome web browser just days after its release, due to a handful of users spotting a provision that gives the company a license to most anything its browser is used to create.

The text in question, contained in Section 11 of the Chrome Terms of Service, allows users to retain copyright of their work, but grants 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” created with Chrome.

Essentially, Section 11 gives Google free reign to do what it wants with most anything that passes from the user to the internet via its browser, including the contents of blog entries, forum posts, and photo uploads – all without paying a cent.

“With more and more apps being shifted into web browsers, this is almost like MS claiming that it gets a license to any document in MS Word, PowerPoint, or Excel,” says Florida attorney David Loschiavo. “What if MS got a license to patents, trademarks and copyrights of any software created with Visio or Visual Studio? … What if Adobe got a license to everything made in Photoshop?”

Google representative Rebecca Ward, head lawyer for Chrome, says the inclusion of Section 11 was a simple oversight, caused by the company’s proclivity for releasing multiple products under a single, “Universal” Terms of Service.

“Sometimes, as in the case of Google Chrome, this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that don't apply well to the use of that product,” she said Tuesday. “We are working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service.”

Even better, Ward says the change will be applied “retroactively” to “all users who have downloaded Google Chrome.”

Ars Technica notes that users can get around Chrome’s EULA – regardless of what it says – by compiling the browser from its source code, which is freely available under the far more permissive BSD license.

Chrome, released Tuesday, is already making waves amongst internet users for speed, ease of use, and innovative take on reliability. Notably, the browser’s release included a 38-page comic book illustrated by cartoonist and webcomic promoter Scott McCloud.

While it’s considered unlikely that Chrome has the capability of making good on its Section 11 claims, some observers noted that the browser’s “Omnibox”, its multi-purpose address and search bar, stores a copy of anything typed inside of it – including backspaced or deleted text – for the purposes of its auto-complete function. Google says it plans on retaining about two percent of the data it receives through that feature – but notes that users can disable that functionality by turning off auto-complete.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

i seriously doubt its an oversight
By rerecros on 9/4/2008 8:17:31 AM , Rating: 2
i just dont buy their excuse




RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By SeanMI on 9/4/2008 8:23:21 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I don't either...and you guys think MS is the evil empire...


RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By 306maxi on 9/4/2008 8:33:32 AM , Rating: 2
Most people here like Google even less than they like Microsoft. I'm certainly one of them.


RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By Lugaidster on 9/4/2008 8:50:43 AM , Rating: 2
I think both companies try to be best at what they do, which is earning money. I use both Microsoft and Google products and both have great pieces of software. Due to their sizes they will obviously be the target of conspirational theories but most of them have no validity. Maybe I'm naive but I do believe they did made a mistake. I do believe that to many people Google is becoming some kind of "King Midas" where whatever it touches transform to "gold". I just hope it doesn't end like the story.

Cheers


RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By FITCamaro on 9/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By idconstruct on 9/4/2008 10:22:35 AM , Rating: 2
To quote a conversation I had with a friend:

"i just think its funny how a couple ppl at google are like "hey i think we could make a good browser" and then they make it and everyone cries foul or mal-intent"

... at least as opposed to microsoft, google offers efficient, well-rounded products at great prices (free) and then open sources it all to boot

On the note of the EULA... looking at how many products they have I highly doubt they're gonna have lawyers come up with fresh EULA's for each and every beta they come up with. (A quick check on their website shows about 50 listed products/services)


RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By JustTom on 9/4/2008 1:02:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"i just think its funny how a couple ppl at google are like "hey i think we could make a good browser" and then they make it and everyone cries foul or mal-intent"


Did your buddy really say ppl?

I do not know if this is an oversight. However, I do wonder if your scenario is true exactly which Google software allows them to own any and all content created with that software. I cannot fathom a situation where this would be ok, regardless of the software in question.


RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By idconstruct on 9/4/2008 1:55:58 PM , Rating: 3
My only guess would be something like gNews or gEarth, where the content is more 'public' ... but yeah I agree that it probably shouldn't be in their "template" EULA


By paydirt on 9/4/2008 2:28:31 PM , Rating: 2
Not an oversight, this type of language would not be appropriate in ANY EULA to ANY business or consumer. The only place it would be appropriate for is Google employees, maybe that is why it's there.

I've had some experience with other business agreements and usually the side with the power tries to get away with the very most favorable language. One agreement wanted my business to accept all liability (even to the personal level, not just my business be liable, but personal assets too), even if it was the fault of the other party.


By Digimonkey on 9/4/2008 4:35:59 PM , Rating: 2
That's pretty much their umbrella agreement for all their online apps. Including Gmail.


By DeepBlue1975 on 9/5/2008 10:46:08 AM , Rating: 3
That's because:

"You don't find google, google finds you".


RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By SpaceRanger on 9/4/2008 9:28:41 AM , Rating: 3
Reading this article, I couldn't help but wonder why I heard the Imperial Theme from Star Wars..


By FITCamaro on 9/4/2008 9:30:31 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry my phone was ringing (that's my ringtone).


By AstroCreep on 9/4/2008 8:47:38 PM , Rating: 2
WHHHHAAAAAAAT???
This is Google, man! The "DON'T BE EVIL" guys! ;)


By Polynikes on 9/4/2008 8:46:31 AM , Rating: 2
"Do no evil" my a$$.


RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By uhgotnegum on 9/4/2008 9:41:17 AM , Rating: 3
Working in the legal field, I can easily see how this could be included from their form language. I also think they probably saw it their and recognized what it means.

However, I think a bigger problem, and one I would throw out for discussion is the lack of negotiation that occurs with software like this (I'm thinking especially in light of the whole "cloud computing" movement).

Basically, we are entering into a contract with whatever program (chrome, remember the milk, dashwire, etc.) we choose to install, but we (the consumer) never get to negotiate the terms of these agreements. At least, I've never tried to email the company and ask for Section 11 to be modified/removed. So, the consumer ends up with situations like this one, and it's not very likely that a clause like this would be thrown out if challenged in court.

I understand that "it's our choice to install it or not," and I do think that the creators of programs like this have *almost* free reign over how they provide it, but when it comes down to it, there aren't that many (any?) realistic alternatives that don't have standardized language like this. I worry that the concept of contracting is losing its meaning and purpose, because of this "throw everything and the kitchen sink" type language.

To clarify, I am NOT a big government kind of guy (Bob Barr anyone?...half seriously, half sarcastically), but I think this is a much bigger problem than people think and this is one of those times where legislation should help to even the discrepancy in negotiating power.

I haven't brilliantly articulated it (b/c I want it to get posted before it's lost in the mix of things), but that's basically it...any thoughts?


By Ryanman on 9/4/2008 11:20:32 AM , Rating: 2
I even think the language used in the EULA is ridiculous, sounds almost like a joke. I dont' even know what google would do with all that intellectual property if they wanted it.

Personally, I'd hope chris crocker was using chrome because he's so smart and witty. It'd be a huge asset for Google to "own" all the mindless blogs out there.

/sarc


RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By jimpaka on 9/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By uhgotnegum on 9/4/2008 12:28:25 PM , Rating: 2
True...it's what I get for, as I write in the post, trying to quickly get the point out before it got lost in the mix (turns out I am incorrect there--used it correctly this time--too).

I'm assuming you are being slightly sarcastic in your post, and to return the favor, I would (sarcastically) ask that you refrain from committing an argumentative fallacy by incorrectly concluding that, because I didn't use the term correctly in a sentence, I don't know the difference/meaning(s) of the word(s); it's a fallacy of argumentation by generalization, because you draw a broad conclusion from an unrepresentative sampling-one sentence--of my writing (technically, you also commit a fallacy of selective reading by concluding my "weak" grammar implies a weak understanding of this issue too). To be precise, I believe my post only presents the possibility that I don't know the difference between the words, and another, more plausible and accurate, reason is that I should have proofread more carefully. If I really don't know the difference, it would seem reasonably for me to misuse the words throughout my post, which isn't the case.

I hope you didn't really stop reading simply because I didn't proof my "thesis" well enough, because I could make some good arguments that doing so is also a mistake.

Mistakes happen, and I own this one as mine. Hopefully, I didn't make any mistakes this time. I am still interested in your opinion on the issue I present in my original post, by the way.


RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By jimpaka on 9/4/08, Rating: 0
By uhgotnegum on 9/4/2008 1:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
I don't disagree with your correlation of grammar quality to intelligent articulation, and I would also extend that to speaking in general. In all honesty, I noticed the "their" mistake post-posting, but decided not to make an editor's note, because I guessed the comment ramifications of the edit would outweigh the benefit it would provide me.

I hope you will consider modifying your approach, however, because I didn't read your original comment as conveying the message that my being "careless about obvious details..." means you imply that I am "overlooking important details of [my post's intention]." I read the comment as a nitpicking (though accurate), "holier than thou" proclamation; that coming from a person who agrees with your perspective too. Personally, I would have reacted less defensively had you "given me" the less judgment-implying proofreading error possibility first.

It's already hard enough to truly understand someone when he/she is face-to-face with you, but written comments make it even harder. So, I hope that someone who, presumably, appreciates the importance of language intelligence in the quality of communication will take care to ensure that his/her point is communicated as completely and accurately as possible.

(This is not intended to be a hypocritical judgment. I like to think I would have appreciated the perspective had the roles been reversed)

Cheers


RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By JustTom on 9/4/2008 1:07:29 PM , Rating: 2
So you think Google should offer the opportunity for users to customize the EULA? They would need what, a googleplex of lawyers to keep track of each and every contract.

I still fail to see why this language was in 'their form language'. Under what circumstances does Google believe it is OK to own content created with their tools?


RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By uhgotnegum on 9/4/2008 1:25:45 PM , Rating: 2
1st question response:
I don't necessarily think that every user needs the opportunity to customize the EULA. Actually, I do NOT think that should be "the answer." I do not think it's too far fetched to think that there could be a designated attorney to "represent" the general consumer and negotiate a more realistic, negotiated, "equal" EULA. There are logistical issues with that proposed idea too, but it's a start.

My end result would be to bring some balance back to these "contracts," it does not have to be so dramatic that every individual who has to sign the EULA has an opportunity to negotiate the terms.

2nd:
It is probably in their form language because the goal of form language, in this case (i.e., form language created specifically for a company), is to benefit the client (read: Google) as much as possible. While a true negotiation would ultimately bring this language to more "equal" levels, it reiterates my point that there aren't really any "negotiations" by a consumer; it's take it or leave it.


RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By JustTom on 9/4/2008 1:46:39 PM , Rating: 2
Second response first:

If it is in their form language because it is seen to be beneficial for Google why do you then believe it is an oversight? In your scenario they have already demonstrated the desire to own content created with their tools; why would Chrome be any different?

First response:

Who would appoint this consumer representative? Most cities and states already have consumer affair divisions and attorney generals. Portions of EULA's are invalidated all the time. And even if there was a federal department of EULA and every EULA had to be vetted by this office we would run into situations where particular consumers disliked portions of an EULA. I believe the best response to overly restrictive EULAs is to not buy the product. Sites like these help by publicizing such ridiculous clauses.


By uhgotnegum on 9/4/2008 2:34:51 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think it was an oversight. I believe that it is probably in their form language, which is as skewed in their favor as possible. If I said/implied that, it wasn't my intention...They (legal) know that language is there, whether in their boilerplate language or not, the only "oversight" would be from the PR department (not the legal department...though legal should have a little more foresight, imo).

I am not sure, so if you know, I stand corrected, but I was not aware that Attorneys General have, within their authority, the ability to negotiate terms with EULAs; I thought they are limited to confronting statute/law violations (I am unaware of unequal bargaining power violating any laws unless/until they are challenged in court...).

Consumer affair divisions DO promote consumer interests, but this is more from a lobbying perspective (if I'm understanding what you mean by "Consumer Affairs Divisions"). While lobbying for consumer rights helps, I think that my suggestion of having a "consumers' attorney" would be one of the options these groups would promote to legislature....Eh, I feel like this is getting more complex and difficult to explain as we dive deeper...

I think this site has provided a "check" to Google, which succeeded in this case, and Attorneys General and Consumer Affairs Divisions certainly provide added support, but I guess where I get hung up is that "where the rubber meets the road," I am still not signing an EULA that I feel is even remotely equal. It appears that this "take it or leave it" dealing is becoming more prevalent with companies and is being increasingly overlooked by the consumer (or maybe I mean the consumer is becoming increasingly desensitized to it).

Lastly, I agree that, especially now, the best response is to not buy the product if you are concerned about the EULA. I read them, and have made that very choice in some cases, but many people don't, and while I don't condone their behavior, I think we need some measure(s) in place that protects the ignorant from themselves. Don't interpret the previous sentence as my endorsement of big brother thinking, because I am usually on the complete other side, but I think there are much larger, slippery slope, issues at stake (e.g., the breakdown of legitimacy in contracting, in general).

Happy to continue the discussion...sorry that I probably expanded the complexity even more.


By mindless1 on 9/4/2008 1:05:53 PM , Rating: 2
Buy their excuse, it would be crazy to think they thought the tech community would let a EULA like that fly or that nobody would notice. What it really means it this really is a beta, hasn't been fully scrutinized and polished to the sheen chrome usually has.


By The0ne on 9/4/2008 1:07:37 PM , Rating: 2
And so it begins; well, after someone found it in a tiny crack of course. They could have been doing this sort of stuff without anyone realizing :)

The key is once you get a user base and for that matter a large market share percentage then you can almost do pretty much what you want. This usually entails screwing the customer obviously, for their personal gain.


By jstchilln on 9/4/2008 6:05:06 PM , Rating: 2
I am with you brother. They already have a track record of being an information black hole. What information do they gather now? What do they do with it??
Dont use a Google toolbar and damn sure be careful what you post because it all ends up in the Google cache FOREVER


By Gentleman on 9/4/2008 7:23:20 PM , Rating: 2
Oh noes...someone actually read the EULA...time to call it an oversight


Don't be evil
By 306maxi on 9/4/2008 8:20:59 AM , Rating: 5
Their "Don't be evil" mission statement should be changed to "Don't appear to be evil"




RE: Don't be evil
By tastyratz on 9/4/2008 9:34:55 AM , Rating: 3
I have to disagree with you.

I believe it that it wasn't really on purpose and just a legal team oversight. Considering the way they normally operate that's more than a small wording, that's an extreme and unusual to include in something like chrome. Do you really think they would try to slip something like that by people?

Its easy to just hate "the man" because of a companies size. I for one strongly support google.
While they aren't a couple guys in a basement or anything now, for a company of their stature I feel they certainly have a far more positive consumer oriented outlook in comparison to other companies.
Google really for the most part is "don't be evil" while everyone else is "don't appear to be evil"


RE: Don't be evil
By 306maxi on 9/4/2008 10:08:32 AM , Rating: 2
That's a load of poop.

If it is an oversight then people should be fired. This isn't some slip of the tongue or a freudian slip or something. Everyone reading that MUST have understood what it meant. I've worked with big business and proofread a couple of EULA's and that would have stood out like a sort thumb.

The difference between Microsoft and Google is that Google have a stranglehold on information and data. Google have the power to influence what I a good deal of the public see on the internet whereas Microsoft merely provide you with an OS or Office, neither of which give Microsoft the power to do what Google can do.

It is for these reasons that I'm really not that bothered about Micrsoft having a monopoly over the OS business and why I'm worried about Google having a monopoly over searches and now bringing a web browser into the mix it could get a lot worse.


RE: Don't be evil
By tastyratz on 9/4/2008 3:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
Google has the greatest marketshare in its area, but Proportionately Microsoft has a significant monopoly on the business. Google as a web search is where most people go to search for information. Using google works better than other sites - but you are fully able to perform the task at hand utilizing a competitor. While they do have the biggest footprint its a fully compatible product for all users and machines with fully capable competitors.

Microsoft on the other hand dominates the operating system/ office productivity app section. If you want to type a document or presentation for someone else you are going to probably run into problem not using a Microsoft product. If you want to run a program or use your pc for anything its difficult to do without a Microsoft product.
They dominate the market to a point where they could pretty much do anything they want and we would be forced to eventually use the product.
New machines will be sold with it and you wont find a way to avoid it. While I don't want to start the vista vs xp argument here its a valid point. Regardless of merits and negatives to the product if your someone who does not want to choose to use vista - try buying a new pc with xp on it... its hardly easy. Fast forward a few years and try getting apps that still run on xp.
Vista was met with plenty of opposition but imagine if windows 7 is released and it ends up being 10% of what vista is as a product. We would all get mad but eventually have to use it because ms would make all the vendors sell only with windows 7.
An operating system involves complete control of how a computer operates.


RE: Don't be evil
By dever on 9/4/2008 11:46:58 AM , Rating: 2
While I think this might have been an oversite, I certainly am not delusional enough to believe Google's "don't be evil" is anything more than marketing plus some good business sense.

It's just another way of saying "customer comes first." It's a decent slogan, plus it's a good way to check yourself before you produce something that won't appeal to your customer.

If the company can imagine something as being percieved as "evil" then the customers may also see it that way, and the perception will hurt their market share.

Plus they get the marketing advantage of potentially being seen as "good" to those ignorant enough to believe that companies are their to do some ethereal "good" above and beyond producing a good products and services that are valuable to the customer.


RE: Don't be evil
By foolsgambit11 on 9/4/2008 2:49:43 PM , Rating: 2
So.... which Google product would Section 11 fit well with? Docs? Gmail? Gears? I don't see where a EULA that says "we get rights to use everything you do with this" fits. So the idea that it's "standard" doesn't jive with me.


RE: Don't be evil
By Digimonkey on 9/4/2008 4:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
Section 11 is in both the Docs and Gmail terms of service.


RE: Don't be evil
By flydian on 9/4/2008 6:32:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yep. I wonder if I should start looking for another email provider...and DAMN sure I'm removing the few items I have posted in Docs. No way Google is claiming ownership of my pathetic resume, or the emails from my Mom.


RE: Don't be evil
By Dasaretba on 9/4/2008 1:43:36 PM , Rating: 2
When realizing that you have something that could potentially be abused, which everyone else and their dog uses in every other EULA on the planet, which is more evil: is it admitting to the potential for abuse and removing it, or is it keeping it in there in spite of public outcry and telling people you don't plan to use it?

Seriously, the evil here is in the attitude that Google is acting evilly when in fact they're trying hard not to be. Supporting them in their lack of evil is what's necessary to change the world of business--and yes, it's the ENTIRE WORLD of software that needs changing. Google is the least evil of any company, and the only reason they're not evil-free is because of the demands that other companies make on them in order for them to even be able to do business.

As a small business consultant, I often adapt portions of the Google model in order to help other companies to not start being evil in the first place, but we have 150 years of one way of doing business the evil way to overcome. It can't simply happen overnight.

I think it's unreasonable to require it... the company would never get anywhere, and would not be able to do anything. Even so: it's good to point out the potential for abuse, and watch what they do with it. Simply declaring the company evil for having it in the first place is like blaming Washington for having copyright law in 1783--when people actually had sense enough to respect someone else's work and give them credit.


why???
By omnicronx on 9/4/2008 9:58:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Google says it plans on retaining about two percent of the data it receives through that feature
Why should they be able to retain any information? I don't want google knowing what website I am going too when typing it in the address bar. I don't see how they should be legally allowed to track anything but Google searches, and it should be server side only, similar to how it is now. To me this is a breach of privacy, and it should be a popup on first launch similar to how IE and firefox ask for error reporting. Simply turning off auto complete is not a solution, as I use that feature regularly.




RE: why???
By Clauzii on 9/4/2008 10:18:16 AM , Rating: 2
I'll guess this won't happen if You don't click the "Send info to Google about crashes and malicsious sites" (don't know the exact english wording since I can only go to the danish Google site), at installation time.

And therein lies also one of the differences of Googles way of installing vs. Microsoft: Selected is NOT on by default. And that's what Google probably expects: that ~2% would choose to send information.


RE: why???
By omnicronx on 9/4/2008 11:18:14 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Google says it plans on retaining about two percent of the data it receives through that feature
Sorry but that's not what they said, or meant.. and it is on by default, it says right in the article you have to turn off autocomplete.
Whats worse is they clearly stated 'retaining' which for all we know means that they receive ALL the information we enter, but they only retain 2%, which could perhaps mean only google searches, but who knows.


Reliability?
By lucav on 9/4/2008 9:55:55 AM , Rating: 3
Reliability? Not for now... It seems quite unstable...
Try this URL:
test:%

Any URL with a ':' followed by a '%'...




RE: Reliability?
By abscoder on 9/4/2008 10:58:07 AM , Rating: 2
Would you look at that...

Even having the text :% in your clipboard contents and right clicking for the context menu in the omnibox will crash it; no need to even paste it.


lawls
By Oroka on 9/4/2008 10:14:31 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, some programmer slipped up by cut and pasting the general Google EULA in Beta software, and now Google is worst than M$ and is Evil.

So what would make a good company? One that hemorrhages money giving away everything while asking nothing in return? Should Google become a charity and ask for your donations so it can try new things so you don't have to get stuck with the same players we had 10 years ago?

Damn Google and their habit of being successful.




RE: lawls
By 306maxi on 9/4/2008 10:55:53 AM , Rating: 2
The fact that you think a programmer slipped up and put that in the EULA shows how little you know of how this sort of thing works. Programmers don't get any say in what the terms of an EULA ar it's big wigs and corporate lawyers who dictate the terms of the EULA..

No one is saying they should lose money as a business model. People are merely saying that google has little if no right to their data. I don't see why google should see what I type in a box. It's a moot point because I will never install Chrome on my PC but for others it's a very valid concern


By Darthvoy on 9/4/2008 12:14:06 PM , Rating: 3
People here seem to think that google can do no wrong. Just because one of their slogan's is "do no evil" doesn't mean they won't do such things. Seems to me that most people were looking for an alternative to Microsoft...something they can say, "hey look here's a giant tech company that's not anti-competitive and 'evil' like Microsoft." What scares me about google is that because of its "people/worker friendly image" google is in the position to...How I can I put this eloquently... slip it in without lube when we are not looking.




Hmm
By HDBanger on 9/4/2008 10:13:57 AM , Rating: 2
Im lookin through the options and all I can find for turning off auto complete is under the options default search/manage, a little checkbox at bottom, does this turn off autocomplete? Not very straightforward me thinks. Also why not include an option to run incognito FULL time? And how bout an option for speed dial instead of recently visited sites? Chrome needs lots o work to unseat mozilla me thinks..




so what
By shin0bi272 on 9/4/2008 12:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
Ive already gone back to Firefox3 and added a couple of addons to make it appear like chrome... now I have the options (and security) of a full browser and the look of chrome only in black (my choice). In case you didnt go too deep into the options of Chrome its pretty thin on things you can change even for a beta. You cant move its installation location, change the buttons in any of the bars, add anything to it (probably because its a beta), or do a bunch of little things that IE and FF can do.

It does however allow embeded audio to play on myspace pages so thats good.




other Google Apps
By soydios on 9/4/2008 2:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
Is this "Section 11" free-license clause in the EULAs for other Google products? Because that would be...displeasing.




Unbelievable
By aos007 on 9/4/2008 3:04:44 PM , Rating: 2
Just unbelievable, yet expected comments from people here. Anyone with any brains would well know that the license agreement for something like Chrome would be immediately scrutinized in great detail. The countless examples in recent years would guarantee that, never mind Chrome's connection to the open source. You would need to have a pea-sized brain to believe that Google really intended this EULA to be included and were "hoping" it will pass by undetected. "I don't believe their excuse", hah. In fact it's so hard to believe that I am starting to suspect people posting here are paid to do so, directly or indirectly. The pro-Microsoft bias here is considerably above anything I've encountered in real IT world, anyway.




Universal Terms of Service
By JustTom on 9/4/2008 9:37:56 PM , Rating: 2
From Google's Universal Terms of Servivce...

quote:
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence 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 licence 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.


http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS

The question is why Google defaults to owning the rights to content submitted, posted, or displayed through its services.




Chrome
By rosoft2001 on 9/8/2008 10:20:36 PM , Rating: 2
While using Chrome I found that a lot of sites sites don't work, due to missing plugins for the new platform. Sometimes just quitting the site is not an option so I created an easy way to open the page in your "old" browser. Just drag and drop the URL from the Chrome URL bar into the Mirror form and you can continue your Chrome browsing.

Download: http://www.zonator.com/mirror.zip




"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot

Related Articles
First Thoughts on Google Chrome
September 2, 2008, 5:18 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki