Google's Chrome: too expensive at any price

[nancylebov]

http://www.edrants.com/google-chrome-is-bad-for-writers-bloggers/

From the EULA, and it's a good thing *someone* reads the fine print:

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 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.

It's a damned shame. I'd like a more stable less memory intensive browser, but I'm hoping Firefox will imitate Chrome's structure.

In much less important news, the cartoon version kept failing to load for me.

Link thanks to shadesong.

Comments

This really isn't much of a change

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

All of Google's services carry this proviso.

[cucumberseed.livejournal.com]

So basically, Google is saying it owns all the content you put on the web while using Chrome, eh?

Well shit. Good thing I won't ever use it, huh.

[avram]

No, at worst Google is saying that it has a right to use the content.

[madfilkentist]

I spent a little time going through that before I believed it. It's true.

At first I thought that "Services" must refer to Google's website or something of the sort. But no: "Your use of Google’s products, software, services and web sites (referred to collectively as the “Services” in this document and excluding any services provided to you by Google under a separate written agreement)..." So when they say "services," they include the browser itself.

Google is explicitly revoking the grant of privacy which we expect in a browser.

[(Anonymous)]

According the the statement above, if I use Google Chrome to display Nancy's livejournal I have granted google a perpetual non-exclusive license to it. Given I have no such rights, I regard this EULA as unenforceable.

[avram]

CNET: Google backtracks on Chrome license terms:

Google said on Wednesday that it plans to alter contract terms that gave the search provider broad rights to use anything entered into its new Chrome browser.

"In order to keep things simple for our users, we try to use the same set of legal terms (our Universal Terms of Service) for many of our products," Google said in a statement provided to CNET News. "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. We are working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service."

[...]

Google said the change, once it is made, will apply retroactively to anyone who has downloaded the browser.