Update - Google amends Chrome EULA (Updated 4 Sep '08 0830 GMT) Google has amended section 11.1 of the Chrome EULA so that it now reads: 11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights that you already hold in Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. There are now no other sub-sections in section 11 …
Could be a boo-boo
This has the look of being a boo-boo...
I'd say it's a copy and paste job of the terms and conditions from an online service (hence "using this service" and they didn't proofread properly...
So the T&C are in Beta too! ;-)
Mushed be shum mishtake
This must be a clause that slipped in from some other Google licence. The use of the word Service (which gmail for example is but which Chrome is not), suggests that someone has been over-enthusiatic with their cutting and pasting from another EULA.
If the clause is intentionally there, then it still makes no sense, because as already mentioned Chrome is not a service. It's a piece of software.
You should still worry about stuff you send via gmail or upload to Facebook, but I suspect that it will transpire that this clause is either a mistake, or it is unenforcable because it is meaningless.
Do no evil?
As more than one blogger has already pointed out today, it's "don't be evil". Apparently there's a subtle difference.
Are you sure?
"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."
Are you sure and certain that these Additional Terms for Chrome don't cancel this "right"?
If it doesn't, Chrome will be *illegal* to use in France which doesn't allow the assignation of copyright.
Whats that, 24 hours?
Quicker than i expected for it to crash and burn, and leave it to the lawyers to kill it stone dead too.
not actually evil...
but very very naughty! Ah well, at least that simplifies my decision on whether to use Chrome or not....
mine's the coat with the half written novel in the pock....hang on, Google nicked it!!!
...I seemed to know this was the case even before reading the article ;-)
Haven trusted google for years, but their search engine is good! Only recently, on a Reg readers advice, have I started using scroogle. Cheers to that person!
How does it identify that content?
How does Google work out just what that content is except where such things have been directly posted to Google owned machines? A cynic might suggest that Chrome keeps a record and reports it back to Google....
That one has happened a *lot*.
What probably happens is:
* They need (genuinely) a licence to use the information to make the system work. For instance a blog site has to have a licence to display what the users have typed into their blogs.
* Someone gets their pet lawyers to draft the licence terms as widely as possible to make certain they are covered in every possible situation.
* But nobody checks to see whether they have drafted it too widely, so it claims far too many rights, often to a ludicrous extent.
* Although they boast of their experience in the business, none of them know that this has happened many times before with exactly the same problems and consequences.
* They publish the licence terms and are genuinely surprised that there are screams of outrage.
* They deny that there is any problem.
* After making sure by their intransigence that it is a public relations disaster they eventually back down, as little as possible, and without ever acknowledging that they cocked up.
And in this case they seem to have added:
* They copy the standard licence terms to an application where those terms make even less sense than they did in the first place.
EULA copied from Google Docs?
Sounds like they've copied the license text from another service where it might have been vaguely sensible. It doesn't make any sense at all in a browser. Shame - Chrome has some nice features and is certainly very fast, in the brief play I've had with it. The Google folks just need to sort their heads out.
Chrome is already banned where I work
Our sysadmins have already circulated an email this afternoon forbidding anyone from installing Google Chrome, citing clauses 11.1 and 11.4 of the EULA as the reason, and adding: "The issue of information rights and the protection of information is important and cannot be over-emphasised."
I'm not sure a browser can be considered a "service", maybe it means Google services you access via Chrome?
not an issue...
since on the 2 machines ive tried it on it manages to crash and burn before its done much. i just get a lovely dead tab icon.
now, why the hell do i get this on 2 very different xp machines??? is the question!
Well here's one IT admin who will be banning Chrome entirely from his network, and downplaying it over-zealously to anyone who dares mention it.
Aside from that MASSIVE downside, it's not a bad browser.
What are "the Services" you speak of?
Once Again, TOO BIG For Their Britches, Google Boys ARE Emperors
The Cosmological Constant of Large Lumps of Shit will coalesce in one place, the Frisco "Bay Area", where the over-bearing obnoxious arrogant jerks like those at Google and Apple, Intel, Adobe truly believe that you're rights are theirs to step all over .... and you pay them a premium while they're at it too.
When will the masses of Kool Aid Drinkers just learn to say no to these a-holes?
why am I not surprised?
Doesn't this violate the GPL?
I assume Google are creating Webkit derivatives under the GPL licence?
No chrome then
I was going to install Chrome to see what all the fuss was about but I think I'll abstain now.
If Google was expecting Chrome to challenge IE, that's not a very good start...
I have a sneaking suspicion that this is more about giving google the right to modify data between you and webservers (ala sticking targeted adverts all over your viewed webpages, whether the owner of the website wants them or not) than it is about usage of published content, but even so -
We all had a jolly good laugh about this in IRC yesterday... just get Chromium, hack in adblock + your favourite extensions and away you go.
Not clever Google
Due to this and the carpetbombing vulnerability that it has it's been banned from our work network already - but anyway you shouldn't test beta software in a work environment really anyway
Clause 11.2 is a 'Bad Un' as well
11.2 You agree that this licence includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organisations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services
So they could then pass your "your content" onto other parties ? For example I upload an image to my blog page via chrome . Google can then take that image and pass it onto a third party ?
Another piece of software stealing your rights away. Wait, isn't just using windows doing that anyway?
Could "Services" refer to the Google web apps instead of Chrome?
storm in a teacup...
This is taken straight from the license for google's other services, where it actually makes a bit more sense. It is a standard T&C for any web based forum/service where users upload content for public viewing. For example, sourceforge includes the exact same T&C. I expect that google's lazy lawyer folk couldn't be arsed to read/update their standard boilerplate.
Clearly, google need to make it clear that it doesn't apply to private content uploaded/posted to 3rd parties using chrome.
Getting sick of google
I find myself distancing myself more and more from google. I just find they are too interested in too much information and its not so much that I don't trust them (why would i, they are basically just another faceless company) but I worry more about what would happen if the info changed hands, say under government pressure.
Add that to this whole content thing and yeah, to much power/information at one spot. So yeah, Chrome will be given a miss.
the browser is cool, fast, nice. all the eula stuff will not stop people from using it, and the devs to start testing on it, and recomend it... it will be a very hard time for fx i think...
btw a new icon is necessary here! you know, the bad, the good and the ugly... google guy!
I'll need my extra-long barge pole for that browser then.
Do no evil? You can f* right off Google.
How will Google know?
Unless this puppy is phoning home about everything you're doing.
Alien because E.T. likes to phone home doesn't he
"or displaying the content"
So just viewing someone else's web page with Chrome means that you give these rights to Google? And warrant that have the right to do so. Which you don't. Therefore you are in breach of the license and so you have to stop using it. Bizarre.
...is this a surprise? Why do people think Google is spending time and money to build a web browser? Google search works fine in existing browsers. What possible use could a Googlebrowser be if this was only about peddling data they already have their hands on?
post or display
So, if I display something in Chrome I am saying I own the right to it and I give Google the right to what every they wish with it.
Does this mean if I browse the whole of Microsofts website I am giving it to Google.
Do no evil - my arse
Countdown to retraction....
All your stuff are belong to us
Services as in gmail etc.
Whilst it is deplorable to have such a clause in pretty much any kind of contract, I cannot help but think that they mean services such as google docs and gmail etc instead of everything done using chrome. I know that you have to be very specific when it comes to legal contracts and this is worded very poorly if I am correct, but this won't have been entirely on purpose for everything done using the browser..
So...as webpages are 'displayed' though it's shiny new browser is google therefore saying it now owns the whole web??
Nice try guys.
I will not be touching chrome...
...until that clause is gone and it stops sending data back to mummy.
Google is the new evil empire.
Another reason not to use chrome
File name: activex-shim
ActiveX Plug-in provides a shim to support ActiveX controls
looks like HAL's eye (probably stating the bleedin' obvious)
I wont be installing Chrome because I hate Google with a passion.
It's obviously a cut-and-paste job from another licence; it will be changed when someone with a commercial brain talks to the lawyer who did it.
They can shove their 'chrome'
up the orifice that the sun shineth not.
Chancing fucking bastards.
Methinks they have gone TOO far this time.
I WAS going to give this a try, but having read the EULA, they can get stuffed.
Time to 'De-Google'.
Surprised that para 11.2 isn't included in the article:
"11.2 You agree that this licence includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organisations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services."
In short, they can take your data and pimp them to the highest bidder.
Yay for Google's fair and liberal EULA...
expect this to be fixed
This clause is unlikely to survive a legal challenge - it's manifestly unreasonable.
More to the point, this seems like a generic licence Google use for all their online services. The clause is unlikely to survive the first common sense review within the Googleplex, now that the problem has been pointed out.
Where's the google-with-a-halo icon (or the one with horns)?
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...
They manage to produce a really good browser that's just what's needed - and then reinforce all the worst fears about what their intentions are with this appalling copyright grab. It'll be banished from here forthwith, and not reinstalled until they get real. Thieving gits.
As I said earler...
I don't like Google's 'fcuk you, we OWN you' attitude.
This is unacceptable.
And it's not going on any system I have anything to do with unless Google backs down and stops trying it on.
It is a good thing somebody reads these things. I look forward to hearing Google's response.
EULA realy sucks. Moreover, who would want a browser from a company that Simply Places Ads for Money. I see a risk in it...
and I agree with the 'blogger above'
What happens to those of us who have material on the net with a CC-BY-NC-SA license?
Someone actually likes my work (well it could happen) and downloads it from *my* website using Google's *browser* making it effectively Google's property. That doesn't even begin to make sense.
Is that the orgasmic cry of a thousand lawyers I hear?
Not only MS and Google
Adobe tried this a while ago with some version of Photoshop, where they tried to do a rights grab uploaded to Adobe's online photogallery via this software. They got shot down in flames for it.
So they have right to my data
But do I have a right to theirs. I didn't think so. Therefore Chrome has become a view only browser for me. And all my tasty copyright work goes up through firefox.
Its the long one with the hat. They are watching you know
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? Why can’t I walk past Maplin without buying stuff I don’t need?
- Review 'Mommy got me an UltraVibe Pleasure 2000 for Xmas!' South Park: Stick of Truth
- The land of Milk and Sammy: Free music app touted by Samsung
- Privacy warriors lob sueball at Facebook buyout of WhatsApp