The Chrome EULA...
-
Or worse, if you use an internal Wiki on your intranet to document company workings (which are probably somewhat secret), you give Google the rights to use that too
Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit! Buzzwords!
hum... so, as long as I don't write private stuff on wikis or blogs, I don't have to care about that point ?
[VisualCalc][Binary Guide][CommDialogs] | [Forums Guidelines]
-
I have to say that I think chrome is very good... I don't think that they could have spent a lot of time on the EULA as it states this - "10.2 You may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any part thereof, unless this is expressly permitted or required by law, or unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google, in writing." It is opensource which means people can modify it, it even says you can do it in the comic.
outside cosmic wrote:
It is opensource which means people can modify it, it even says you can do it in the comic.
I think that refers to Chromium, which is not under Chrome's EULA.
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
-
outside cosmic wrote:
It is opensource which means people can modify it, it even says you can do it in the comic.
I think that refers to Chromium, which is not under Chrome's EULA.
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
I thought Chromium was the Project name for Chrome?
-
hum... so, as long as I don't write private stuff on wikis or blogs, I don't have to care about that point ?
[VisualCalc][Binary Guide][CommDialogs] | [Forums Guidelines]
toxcct wrote:
so, as long as I don't write private stuff on wikis or blogs, I don't have to care about that point ?
well.... yes and no. The Eula would grant them the right to sell your articles here to companies to profit from your work here. Whereas normally you would retain the right and companies would have to ask you, instead you have transferred the right to everything ("content") that you send through the browser, forum or wikis, or articles at CP, they are all the possible property of Google. Google does not have to take that property unless they decide it is profitable, but anything and everything is available for Google to profit from, not you.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
-
Thanks for the tip. I will uninstall it as soon as I get home. Do no evil my ass... They're just as 'evil' as MS.
IIRC they've changed it "do not evil, or at least do not get caught".
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
toxcct wrote:
so, as long as I don't write private stuff on wikis or blogs, I don't have to care about that point ?
well.... yes and no. The Eula would grant them the right to sell your articles here to companies to profit from your work here. Whereas normally you would retain the right and companies would have to ask you, instead you have transferred the right to everything ("content") that you send through the browser, forum or wikis, or articles at CP, they are all the possible property of Google. Google does not have to take that property unless they decide it is profitable, but anything and everything is available for Google to profit from, not you.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
But how can they know something was written with Chrome or not ? I mean, it is open source, so even with spyware, some could modify the source and made it spy free... not ?
[VisualCalc][Binary Guide][CommDialogs] | [Forums Guidelines]
-
I thought Chromium was the Project name for Chrome?
-
No not illegal, because they aren't forcing you to do anything - it's your choice as to whether you use the browser. What gets me is how everyone goes on about how evil 'M$' are, yet for years Microsoft have become a lame duck with all the anti-trust mess they have gone through. Microsoft can't sneeze without someone combing through the debris to ensure they are sneezing in a fair and just manner. Google, on the other hand, Can Do No Wrong. I don't get it. Microsoft tried to squeeze a few more bucks out of its customers (A business? Trying to get cash? Noooo!!) and then tried to take out its competition (again: A business? Being aggressively competitive? Noooo!!) but Google essentially has a monopoly on search. It controls which sites you view. It knows what you are reading (search) where you are interested in (maps), where you are (IP location), what sites you visit (through the AdWords that everyone has on their sites), and your private emails (GMail). This isn't a few bucks or a rival company being squashed. This is your personal information - information you wouldn't in a million years voluntarily give to a company if they came knocking at your door and asked for openly. Sure, Microsoft and Yahoo have much of this information too, but not to the extent, and they as companies are (now) open and constantly scrutinized and criticized. But why this continued Google blindspot? It boggles me.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
But why this continued Google blindspot? It boggles me.
There is no real blindspot. The US fed / state anti-trust lords didn't come up with the idea of going after MS on their own - they were pressured into it by MS competitors. If enough Google competitors go crying to them I suspect they may go after Google as well - unless they've learned how stupid the whole thing really is.
-
No not illegal, because they aren't forcing you to do anything - it's your choice as to whether you use the browser. What gets me is how everyone goes on about how evil 'M$' are, yet for years Microsoft have become a lame duck with all the anti-trust mess they have gone through. Microsoft can't sneeze without someone combing through the debris to ensure they are sneezing in a fair and just manner. Google, on the other hand, Can Do No Wrong. I don't get it. Microsoft tried to squeeze a few more bucks out of its customers (A business? Trying to get cash? Noooo!!) and then tried to take out its competition (again: A business? Being aggressively competitive? Noooo!!) but Google essentially has a monopoly on search. It controls which sites you view. It knows what you are reading (search) where you are interested in (maps), where you are (IP location), what sites you visit (through the AdWords that everyone has on their sites), and your private emails (GMail). This isn't a few bucks or a rival company being squashed. This is your personal information - information you wouldn't in a million years voluntarily give to a company if they came knocking at your door and asked for openly. Sure, Microsoft and Yahoo have much of this information too, but not to the extent, and they as companies are (now) open and constantly scrutinized and criticized. But why this continued Google blindspot? It boggles me.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
But why this continued Google blindspot? It boggles me.
I doubt it will last much longer.
cheers, Paul M. Watson.
-
...sucks. http://tapthehive.com/discuss/This\_Post\_Not\_Made\_In\_Chrome\_Google\_s\_EULA\_Sucks This will probably mean I cannot use Chrome at work. WTF?
Give it time, it's only a beta and they had to release a few days early unexpectedly, they clearly dropped in a license from another product just to get it out the door and accidentally left in a lot of irrelevant stuff.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
No not illegal, because they aren't forcing you to do anything - it's your choice as to whether you use the browser. What gets me is how everyone goes on about how evil 'M$' are, yet for years Microsoft have become a lame duck with all the anti-trust mess they have gone through. Microsoft can't sneeze without someone combing through the debris to ensure they are sneezing in a fair and just manner. Google, on the other hand, Can Do No Wrong. I don't get it. Microsoft tried to squeeze a few more bucks out of its customers (A business? Trying to get cash? Noooo!!) and then tried to take out its competition (again: A business? Being aggressively competitive? Noooo!!) but Google essentially has a monopoly on search. It controls which sites you view. It knows what you are reading (search) where you are interested in (maps), where you are (IP location), what sites you visit (through the AdWords that everyone has on their sites), and your private emails (GMail). This isn't a few bucks or a rival company being squashed. This is your personal information - information you wouldn't in a million years voluntarily give to a company if they came knocking at your door and asked for openly. Sure, Microsoft and Yahoo have much of this information too, but not to the extent, and they as companies are (now) open and constantly scrutinized and criticized. But why this continued Google blindspot? It boggles me.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Well said, Chris! :-D
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"