Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Reading Google Chrome's Fine Print

kdawson posted about 6 years ago | from the here-be-tygers dept.

Google 607

Much ink and many electrons are being spilled over Google's Chrome browser (discussed here twice in recent days): from deep backgrounders to performance benchmarks to its vulnerability to a carpet-bombing flaw. The latest angle to be explored is Chrome's end-user license agreement. It does not look consumer-friendly. "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."

cancel ×

607 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It wont even install for me (0, Offtopic)

QuantumG (50515) | about 6 years ago | (#24856247)

Guess they haven't tested the installer on XP64.

Re:It wont even install for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856291)

The installer works for me on XP64. What doesn't work is accessing the options and importing data from Firefox.

Re:It wont even install for me (1, Informative)

BeNJ-GoS (592137) | about 6 years ago | (#24856345)

Works fine for me, including import of everything from FF3 and the Options menu using XP64... (Not impressed at the moment compared to FF3)

Re:It wont even install for me (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856305)

Prepare to be even less impressed and look at the V8 src, they only have codegen for ia32 and arm. Plenty of hardcoded platform specific (windows) guff in the browser codebase too.

This stuff might have been acceptable in 2003 but it's -DEPIC_FAIL for 2008.

guff? (5, Funny)

stupidflanders (1230894) | about 6 years ago | (#24856395)

I think... I think he's trying to communicate with us, but I can't quite make out what he's saying.

Re:guff? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856481)

I think... I think he's trying to communicate with us, but I can't quite make out what he's saying.

Please do feel free to look up [google.com] any short, monosyllabic, four letter words that are above your level of reading comprehension.

"Growser" is currently Windows only. It's got hard coded registry access and other such retardation throughout the code. Where you might think lib/ the chromium developers think chrome_dll/ and so on.

Re:guff? (4, Funny)

lanswitch (705539) | about 6 years ago | (#24856553)

It's language, Jim, but not as we know it.

Re:It wont even install for me (0)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 6 years ago | (#24856475)

Google has code that much for software on running on Linux. It seems like half their stuff they just runs through wine.

Re:It wont even install for me (-1, Flamebait)

Loibisch (964797) | about 6 years ago | (#24856745)

Don't take it personally, but I can't have any respect for people (or their opinion) who use the phrase "epic fail"...makes one sound like those immature "cool" kids on the web.

404 (2, Interesting)

m0ve (1280392) | about 6 years ago | (#24856249)

funny thing : i can read this with FF but get 404 using chrome

This is not Chrome-specific. (5, Informative)

DrEldarion (114072) | about 6 years ago | (#24856261)

I doubt this has anything to do with Chrome. It's taken straight out of their Google Accounts terms: https://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en [google.com]

See point 11.1.

Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (5, Insightful)

Swizec (978239) | about 6 years ago | (#24856283)

There's a difference between having an EULA for google services and an EULA for google browser and they should be different. I can understand anything I upload to google being google's property henceforth, but anything I upload using their browser? Basically ... if I use their browser anything I do online becomes their property ... how is that good for me or anyone?

This is yet another sign of google's impending world domination. Won't be long before they own everything people use from software, to clothes, to spouses and children.

Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (5, Informative)

FilterMapReduce (1296509) | about 6 years ago | (#24856353)

Google has announced that Chrome is to be open source. If this has the conventional meaning of being licensed under an OSI-approved license, or anything remotely resembling one, then a EULA would be redundant and unenforceable. (Even if Google tried to exercise some implicit contractual terms around the use of Chrome, someone could simply exercise the permissions given under the open source license to repackage the code under a different name with no EULA.)

I'm not going to RTFA at this hour, but the only reasonable interpretation is that the terms in question apply only to Google's services and not the browser software itself. Anything else would be audacious even for a company without Google's mostly good reputation.

Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (3, Interesting)

savuporo (658486) | about 6 years ago | (#24856587)

Chrome is _going_ to be open source ? Whatever happened to "release early, release often" ideology ? I mean, if they decided that its going to be open source from the outset, why wouldnt they be doing the development in the open as well ?

Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (5, Informative)

wildstoo (835450) | about 6 years ago | (#24856665)

The source is available now [chromium.org] , and from what I understand they're using the BSD License [google.com] .

Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (5, Insightful)

rugatero (1292060) | about 6 years ago | (#24856437)

Basically ... if I use their browser anything I do online becomes their property ... how is that good for me or anyone?

Actually the terms say that you grant a royalty-free licence, not ownership. It's still an unacceptable condition, but I feel the distinction is important.

Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (1)

Swizec (978239) | about 6 years ago | (#24856505)

In the modern day that is, sadly, merely a semantic difference. If someone has a royalty-free licence to do anything with something they might as well own it and it woudln't make any difference to them or the author.

Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (1)

pipatron (966506) | about 6 years ago | (#24856631)

The difference is of course that they can't deny you access to the information. That's what ownership normally means: you can have something for yourself, and deny it to others.

Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (1)

Swizec (978239) | about 6 years ago | (#24856651)

Oh great, not only have they "stolen" my stuff, they get to also rub the fact they're making millions off my work without paying me a dime in. Very good yes.

If something like that happened btw, could you sue?

Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (5, Informative)

Idaho (12907) | about 6 years ago | (#24856525)

There's a difference between having an EULA for google services and an EULA for google browser and they should be different.

Here is the privacy policy for Chrome: http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html [google.com]

It does not mention the terms in this article, which clearly seem related to google services and not the browser.

Mind you, the privacy policy does mention unique ID's for each browser, and sending them to google every time you start the browser. Also, Chrome automatically installs a GoogleUpdate executable and adds it to your autoruns; I really hate it when applications do that. So it's still pretty bad, but not in exactly the way this "article" makes it out to be.

Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (1)

sholsinger (1131365) | about 6 years ago | (#24856657)

Seeing as how they seem to be integrating Google services at a very low level within the browser, it makes sense to incorporate the Google Accounts and Google Apps EULAs into that of Chrome.

Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (1)

LowlyWorm (966676) | about 6 years ago | (#24856707)

I have to admit the EULA did make me cringe a little. (I should also add I am using Chrome as I write this). If Google turns evil I will uninstall it. Also, what it seemed to say didn't look like open source to me. So far I still prefer Fire Fox. Chrome is just too...cute.

Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (4, Informative)

tirerim (1108567) | about 6 years ago | (#24856301)

Even if it's part of their generic license, how it applies to Chrome is still important. What does "submitting, posting, or displaying" even mean in the context of a browser? It seems at least slightly plausible that could be interpreted to include personally generated content that the user views with the browser. I hope that it doesn't really work that way, but I am not a lawyer.

Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (1)

asdir (1195869) | about 6 years ago | (#24856337)

And imagine: If you would take it literally how that would work with other stuff that has a similar regulation once it is uploaded? Who owns the rights to distribute flickr images then? Flickr, me or Google? Or all? If so, what is a right worth then? I can only imagine that Google copied their general EULA without thinking how it applies to browser and content submitted through it.

Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856433)

Imagine an even more far fetched scenario - your company uses some kind of web mail. One could abstract that Google have some claim over any emails and attachments you send/receive through Chrome.

Clearly this is not what Google intend and they have pasted their generic EULA into place until such times as they can afford to pay for a legal representative to write a shiny new one.

Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (1)

edelholz (1098395) | about 6 years ago | (#24856463)

Isn't that already true for GMail? Everyone here seems to agree that the EULA is taken directly from other Google services, GMail being one of them.

Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (2, Insightful)

centuren (106470) | about 6 years ago | (#24856649)

I routinely admonish coworkers (above and below me) for sending email through a 3rd party webmail provider (usually them sending something to my gmail address rather than work address, for some unknown reason). When I'm working remotely and the normal server goes down, I'll use Google's SMTP server if it's the best working option, but it goes through encrypted.

Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (5, Funny)

hdparm (575302) | about 6 years ago | (#24856425)

It's really strange stuff. Someone might think that even transfers/deposits one makes while accessing own bank account also belong to Google. Or stuff someone buys on Ebay. Once on-line voting and Chrome become prevalent, Google will also become The President.

Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (5, Insightful)

minginqunt (225413) | about 6 years ago | (#24856419)

The frequency of badsummary on this site makes me sad.

I bet the editors of this site never intended the tag system to be used primarily as a mechanism for drawing attention to their own incompetence.

Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (4, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 6 years ago | (#24856499)

I'm all for syntactic sugar, but isn't badsummary completely redundant when it follows the 'kdawson' tag?

Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856471)

it also mentions "services" of which chrome isnt, its a product.

It is almost exactly what MSN IM had (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856543)

remember then? Anything you sent over their network was available to Microsoft.

They did retract it but I can only remember this being for US customers. Don't remember it being rescinded for non-US customers.

Re:This is not Chrome-specific. (1)

zby (398682) | about 6 years ago | (#24856667)

OK - so it is copied from the Google Accounts TOS. Does that change anything? It is in the Chrome EULA - so it applies to Chrome. And also this is stated at the beginning at the EULA that Service in that document means collectively: "products, software, services and web sites" - with Chrome being 'software' as I understand.

Misread much? (5, Insightful)

onlysolution (941392) | about 6 years ago | (#24856267)

It looks to me like the out-of-context excerpts here all pertain to your use of Google's services with Chrome. All of these services state that you agree to let Google use the data you generate so I perhaps these clauses are present in Chrome's EULA to cover your use of their apps in Gears?

Re:Misread much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856459)

Your use of Googleâ(TM)s products, software, services and web sites (referred to collectively as the âoeServicesâ

So yes, it does, legally speaking, cover Chrome also.

Re:Misread much? (1)

TheJasper (1031512) | about 6 years ago | (#24856501)

I don't agree. One of the 'out-of-context-excerpts' is about google being able to update chrome in any way they want with any service they desire. If they were to put in a spell check service which checks everything you type, then all of a sudden everythign you type is google useable? I don't think it would come to that but the implications are there.

Re:Misread much? (5, Informative)

zby (398682) | about 6 years ago | (#24856589)

Right at the beginning of the EULA you have definition of the word Service - as it is used in that document:

Google Chrome Terms of Service

These Terms of Service apply to the executable code version of Google Chrome. Source code for Google Chrome is available free of charge under open source software license agreements at http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html [google.com] .

1. Your relationship with Google

1.1 Your use of Googleâ(TM)s products, software, services and web sites (referred to collectively as the âoeServicesâ in this document and excluding any services provided to you by Google under a separate written agreement) is subject to the terms of a legal agreement between you and Google.

So when in the point 9.1. they use the word 'Service' it clearly means: "products, software, services and web sites" and that includes Chrome.

Use Chromium (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856281)

I suggest you use the OpenSource version of Chrome , which is BSD licensed and has no EULA you need to agree to.

I think they made this separation of Chrome and Chromium to keep the "Chrome" brand under their control while still making the browser open source.

Builds:
http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/

Info:
http://www.chromium.org

Re:Use Chromium (5, Insightful)

centuren (106470) | about 6 years ago | (#24856687)

Quite right.

Any specific critiques of interface of licensing seem to be moot in the long run, since the stated goal of this browser is to release better tools for ALL the browsers, including ones that are fully open source.

There's not much point in arguing how much Google might monitor or claim usage-rights over, as the obvious goal is a backbone for all browsers that makes their applications run better and gives them more potential to develop new ones. Competing with IE and FF doesn't exactly fit well in their business plan.

The real questions are, if V8 actually does blow all current JS engines away, how soon are we going to see it in a Firefox release? If the independent handling of tabs prove to be the sensible way to handle it, will it make it into FF4?

If the things Google is introducing are better, V8 should get in there quickly, but multiprocess handling of tabs and plugins, etc, will require quite a bit of work to get into existing browsers.

Re:Use Chromium (3, Informative)

sd.fhasldff (833645) | about 6 years ago | (#24856729)

Considering the MASSIVE javascript speed improvements Mozilla have achieved using "hotpath" techniques, I think it's unlikely (these improvements are not yet in stable release). On the other hand, the description of V8 from the Google Comic seem to indicate that they do something along the same lines, by dynamically compiling parts of the script to "machine code" (as they say). Without specifics, it's difficult to compare the approaches, though...

And, by the way, this optimizing is also why there is "IE32" and "ARM" specific code in Chrome. There has to be. That's integral to how hotpath-type techniques work.

A turn off? (5, Interesting)

hachiman (68983) | about 6 years ago | (#24856293)

Whilst the auto update feature sort of makes sense (if you discount a malicious user working out how to auto-update an installed copy with their own code), I detest ads, possibly in common with the rest of the world. Ok, it is their revenue, but it's bad enough seeing them on pages, but having them eve more targetted???

Oh yes, and the autoupdate program (googleupdate.exe) still executes at startup even after Chrome is uninstalled. I know it's a beta, but that's just sloppy.

Or is it???

Re:A turn off? (2, Interesting)

bignetbuy (1105123) | about 6 years ago | (#24856519)

It is sloppy. GoogleUpdate is called as a scheduled task on MS platforms. It claims that if Chrome is uninstalled, the scheduledtask will remove itself in "a few hours".

Still, not using Add/Remove programs like other well-behaved apps is just shady.

Re:A turn off? (1)

blind biker (1066130) | about 6 years ago | (#24856719)

What's an easy way to remove that? I didn't uninstall Chrome, yet (no need, for now), but I'd like to know it's no big deal. I guess it isn't, but it doesn't hurt asking...

I'm more concerned about this part... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856299)

12. Software updates 12.1 The Software that you use may automatically download and install updates from time to time from Google. These updates are designed to improve, enhance and further develop the Services and may take the form of bug fixes, enhanced functions, new software modules and completely new versions. You agree to receive such updates (and permit Google to deliver these to you) as part of your use of the Services.

Burying an agreement to have spyware installed on your machine deep within obscure legalese is not something I'd have expected of Google, and there seems to be no way to disable the associated googleupdate.exe process without registry hacking.

adj: Unconscionable (4, Funny)

jackb_guppy (204733) | about 6 years ago | (#24856303)

Google lawyers may need to learn a new word that ATT was just taught... Unconscionable

So far so good. (4, Informative)

Blimey85 (609949) | about 6 years ago | (#24856307)

I'm using it right now just to try it out. I'm a huge Firefox fan and have been for several years now. I started using Firefox back when it was just a beta, long before version 1 finally hit. As a web programmer I think I use Firefox more than any other program and I've really come to like it. It does have a few issues that I'd like to see resolved however, and I think Chrome might be going in the right direction. Memory usage in Firefox is nuts and always has been. After browsing for a couple of hours I can close all tabs and still use nearly 400 megs of memory. That's a serious problem. Sure I can restart Firefox at that point and get the memory back, but I shouldn't need to. Also, when Firefox is using more than 300 megs on my machine, it starts to slow down. I had a gig and a half in my computer so I thought maybe I needed more. I bought another gig and brought my total to 2.5 gigs, yet Firefox still begins to crap out around the 300 meg threshold.

From the comic it seems like Google really wants to take a new approach to how browsers deal with memory and I think Firefox could learn from that. Is that enough to make me switch? No, not at all. I rely on a number of Firefox extensions and unless Google makes Chrome compatible with Firefox extensions, or comes up with their own system and then develops a tool to auto-port Firefox extensions, I don't think a lot of people are going to switch. Back when I was running 1.5.3 (I think it was .3) and had a number of stability issues I might have given Chrome serious consideration but I only installed it tonight to see what it's all about. When I'm done playing it's back to Firefox I go.

Re:So far so good. (5, Insightful)

BBFire (825138) | about 6 years ago | (#24856413)

Yes! All looking good / working fine here too. Simple no future for me though without AdBlock (or some equivalent).. thought I'd seen the last of those damn smileys forever. "Do no evil".. cmon, it's tantamount to torture nowadays to leave a user unsure if the next tab is going to greet them with a nauseating flash anim or that buzzing noise..

Re:So far so good. (1)

doooooosh (1124823) | about 6 years ago | (#24856571)

Amen to this. The internet was reborn for me when I installed Flashblock and AdBlock (though, admittedly, it's hard to reasonably expect a company that gets its revenue from ads to help you block them).

Not including smooth scrolling is just another gross oversight.

Re:So far so good. (1)

KasperMeerts (1305097) | about 6 years ago | (#24856645)

You don't need AdBlock, just edit your hosts [wikipedia.org] file. It disables just about every ad on every site I know.

Re:So far so good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856679)

AdBlock is better since it stops the ads from even being requested by the browser, it has automatic updates and you don't have to manually edit anything if you want to block. Just right click and block.

Re:So far so good. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856443)

I have loaded Chrome this morning and the first thing I notice is the crappy character display. The text looks out of focus and washed out - just like Firefox does. But I also notice how quickly it displays a page compared to IE.

But, until they can sort out the on-screen text, I will stick with Internet Explorer.

PLT
Geneva - Switzerland

Re:So far so good. (1)

houghi (78078) | about 6 years ago | (#24856563)

After browsing for a couple of hours I can close all tabs and still use nearly 400 megs of memory. That's a serious problem.

I do not know what OS you run, but on Linux this is a question that often pops up: "I have nothing running and have xyzMB in memory in use.

The answer obviously is: because you have xyz+abcMB you have available.
I have 8GB in my machine an it uses a serious part of it. That is what it is for. That is why I bought it. It doesn't slow down anything if it isn't used.

This doesn't mean that there is no problem with Firefox, because there is.

Business is business (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856319)

Coming from a company that had till recently no publicly available privacy policy, I would say consumer-friendlyness is not at the of the agenda.

This said, if they are to compete with the likes of Microsoft, this is not necessarily a bad thing.

Re:Business is business (1)

ellenbee (978615) | about 6 years ago | (#24856341)

nah, google was supposed to the company that was "different", I don't think trying to be more like microsoft is a good thing.

My wife caught me masturbating with her panties! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856323)

Twice! The first time I was in the bathroom playing with her knickers when she walked in on me. She was merely amused. She smiled at me and went back to bed. She woke up thinking it was a dream, but I figured she was trying to trap me, so I told her the truth. She didn't care, but something in the way she looked told me that she liked it. The NEXT night! I was at it again, jerking away with her gray cotton knickers around my cock and another pair pressed up to my nose to inhale the sweet musky scent she leaves behind in the crotch. And she walked in, smiling.

But then, immediately, she was FURIOUS! "Get your filthy cock out of my underwear," she ordered. I was busted. there was no way she'd let me live it down. I guess she didn't really like catching me after-all. Or did she? Another smile, more devious and twisted, almost delightfully cruel, crept across her face. She stepped over to where I was balled up on the bathroom floor, bent over and picked up the panties from the floor, chuckling. "So, you like playing with my panties?" She put them up to her face and breathed her smell in deeply. "Mmmm.. I guess I do smell pretty nice and sweet. Oh, what have we here? Did you get a little pre-cum stain on my panties?" She held them out to me so as to display the stain. I was mortified. My wife can be quite the meanie when she wants to be.

"I'll tell you what," she said. "I'll let you finish your little session, and let you shoot your cum aaaaall over my panties if you want to." She smiled that evil grin again. "Right in the crotch. ...But only in return for... something." She tossed her head back a little and laughed slightly. I was a bit taken at this. It seemed to me that she was playing with me, toying with my vulnerability.

"o... okay," I managed to say. my heart was racing.

"Good!" she replied. "You didn't even find out what I wanted first, you fool." Her entire demeaner changed instantly. "That's why you got caught, you foolish dog, you. Thinking with your cock. You think I'm going to touch your cock? After finding you in here playing with yourself like a little boy?" She laughed, and stooped down to eye level with me, grabbed me by the chin and said directly to my face, "No, little boy. Mommy's not going to touch your little toy cock. But since you like the smell of my pussy so much, why don't you get a REAL good whiff?" She choked me, grabbing me by the neck and digging her fingernails in deep. Then she stood up and forced my face into her crotch. She wasn't wearing anything under her nightgown and her stiff pubic hairs stuck through the fabric. I was smothered. I couldn't breathe anything except the faint stench from her cunt. She was getting off on this. I could smell her wetness. It turned me on, but at the same time, she had me by the throat and she meant business.

"You like that? Is that what you wanted to smell, little boy?' She twisted my head hard into her crotch. "Why aren't you jacking off now? Hmmm? Am I being too rough?" As she said that, she brought her foot up and into my crotch and pressed hard into my balls, practically smashing them. "If you like the smell of my cunt so much, why didn't you just ask me to give it to you instead of going behind my back like a little child? Why aren't you a man? Is this a man's penis I'm crushing beneath my feet or little boy's? hmmm?" She laughed down at me, languishing in my pain. I still couldn't breath, except for the hot, sticky-sweet air from her moist pussy ,until suddenly she relased me from her clutches and eyeed me as if awaiting my answer. "Hmmmm?" She tightened her grip around my neck and pressed her heels deeper into my balls.

"It's... a ma.. a man's penis," I somehow managed to say.
"Oh, so you're a man, then?" I nodded. "good," she replied as she practically threw me back into the wall. "Here, let me see what I did to your cock." She examined my penis and testicles, caressing them and cooing like a mother consoling her child. "Poor baby. Did mommy hurt your little plaything?" Her rubbing and stroking made my cock throb painfully with erection, still sore from her foot treatment. "you like when I rub it better? Okay, sweetie. Momy's foot can play nicely, too. You like mommy's feet, right?" I was mortified at the question. Any answer could be wrong and subject me to more excruciating pain, or delightful pleasure. She noted my indecisiveness and forcefully said "My FEET. You like them, don't you?" She stood as she spoke and began rubbing her toes across my budging cock. "I've seen you look at them. I also know about the websites you visit. I KNOW all about your childish little fetishes, so don't try to pretend with me. You like my feet, don't you?" I just nodded as she stroked me with the soft soles of her feet. Her feet really were beautiful, and soft. Perfect for rubbing across my dick.

"See? It's much easier to just tell the truth, isn't it? You're a pathetic little pervert who's too scared of his own wife to ask her to fulfill your sexual favors. But now, you're going to fulfill MINE. You are my toy now. This is MY fantasy now. So... since you've had your fill of my dirty, smelly pussy, you're going to service my feet." She ran her toes up my chest to my face and pressed her entire foot into it. "Lick it. You like it so much, so lick my smelly foot clean, little boy." I did as she instructed, and I was glad for it. Her feet had a mild odor that I can only describe as being like slightly rotten walnuts. it turned me on and again my cock seemed to forget all about the throbbing pain and began to harden again at the strange pungent smell and salty taste of her feet. "Mmmm yes," she moaned. "suck on my toes." I did and as she arched her foot back to meet my greedy mouth, I looked underneath her nightgown, all the way up to her hairy pussy, messy and foaming with her wetness. I could smell it's aroma in the air intermingled with the smell of her feet. "Why are you looking at my pussy? You can't have that," she told me. That's for grown men, not little boy foot servants. Keep on licking my feet." So I did.

I licked and sucked her toes for what seemed to have been hours and I relished every moment of it. Midways through, she threw me her panties, telling me "You're leaking cum. Wipe it up with my underwear." Later, she told me that I had been a good enough foot slave to be able to jerk off before her. "You can even look at my pussy. But don't try to touch it." She pulled her foot away from my mouth and patted me on the head. "Good boy. Now come here" She nudged my head closer to her crotch as she pulled up her nightgown over her hips and exposed her messy twat to me. "Don't you dare touch it yet, child. Just smell it. Don't I smell raunchy and dirty? Mmm? You want to lick me, don't you?" I nodded, intentionally nudging my face closer to her sticky mound as I did so. "Of course you do, my little boy. My pussy is a dirty, messy cumhole and you can't wait to slurp it all up, can you," she chuckled as she pushed my mouth into her smelly twat.

"Use your tongue, you useless thing," she hissed. "And spank into my panties. Cause my pussy is too good for your tiny little boy's cock." Her voice was high-pitched and shrill by this point, and I knew she was about to come. "Mmm... Oh my god, you lick so good. Taste me. Taste my dirty cunt." She was leaned against the wall, writhing and panting and sweating as I slurped and lapped at her clit. She even spread her pink lips open for me. "Ah. Lick it all up," she moaned, still ordering me, still raptured in delight. I could tell when she came. Her hole closed tightly around my tongue in tight convulsions that seemed to sweep across her whole body, immobilizing her. As soon as I felt her pussy shudder in ecstasy, I immediately felt the similar sensation in my cock as it rubbed against her soft, warm panties. My sperm built up inside my cock like a boulder before shooting out into the panties, where it was absorbed and left behind as a dark sticky spot upon the fabric. "Mmm.. you finished too," she heaved. "Now give me my panties." She took them from me, careful not to disturb any of the sperm I'd shot on them, and placed them in my mouth. "Now taste your sperm like a good little boy." I don't know why, but I didn't object at all, even thought the thought of eating my own sperm was repulsive. I left my mouth opened as she stuffed her soiled underwear in my mouth, sperm-soaked crotch first. My sperm tasted salty and milky-sweet, intermingled with her sweaty cunt residue. "That's it, suck it all up." She looked down at me and smiled as I ate my sperm for my wife's amusement. Then she snatched them out of my mouth, saying "Good. now give me these. They are mine. And I don't even want to catch you with them again, you dirty-minded bastard." She put them on underneath her nightgown and pulled the sperm moistened section tightly into her cunt folds. As she turned to leave, she stopped briefly at the bathroom door and shot a smile at me that let me know that she probably really did want to catch me a third time. I want her to, too. So, every night, I sneak into the bathroom and dig her nastiest pair of panties from the clothes hamper, and hope that I get caught.

Great License Agreement (-1, Flamebait)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | about 6 years ago | (#24856351)

Google == Evil

Re:Great License Agreement (1)

nicolastheadept (930317) | about 6 years ago | (#24856383)

If you don't like the EULA, then compile it yourself from the source
http://code.google.com/chromium/ [google.com]

Re:Great License Agreement (3, Funny)

pipatron (966506) | about 6 years ago | (#24856677)

Or just press "cancel" at the EULA and get the download anyway, like I did.

Re:Great License Agreement (2, Funny)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 6 years ago | (#24856465)

Replace the g with a $ and show them how you really feel!

LGPL? (2, Interesting)

bcmm (768152) | about 6 years ago | (#24856357)

Chrome uses WebKit, which is based on the LGPL'ed software KHTML. Shouldn't this make it harder to put weird restrictions on usage?

Unfortunately not (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856617)

Because the LGPL only applies to the library itself.

Since you can take the library and use it under another application which doesn't have this EULA, the LGPL is bypassed.

One reason why the readline libraries are GPL. The authors don't want to help someone who doesn't want to help their customers.

"It's been 35 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"

Re:LGPL? (1)

pipatron (966506) | about 6 years ago | (#24856709)

No. If it was GPL instead of LPGL it would be harder. LGPL is designed to let companies use and abuse the code. GPL is designed to force companies to give the user the same freedom that the company used when they first downloaded the code.

There are pros and cons with both of these approaches.

jumping to conclusions (4, Informative)

speedtux (1307149) | about 6 years ago | (#24856385)

I think you're jumping to conclusions; that is Google's usual "content license", and something they need in order to offer services to you. I don't know how you think it applies to the browser. If you're trying to imply that Google is attempting to claim that everything you do with Chrome belongs to them, you're wrong.

Re:jumping to conclusions (1)

stupidflanders (1230894) | about 6 years ago | (#24856409)

No, this [flickr.com] is jumping to conclusions.

Re:jumping to conclusions (0, Flamebait)

the 99th penguin (1453) | about 6 years ago | (#24856545)

I think you're jumping to conclusions; that is Google's usual "content license", and something they need in order to offer services to you. I don't know how you think it applies to the browser. If you're trying to imply that Google is attempting to claim that everything you do with Chrome belongs to them, you're wrong.

I suppose you are a contract lawyer?

Re:jumping to conclusions (1)

houghi (78078) | about 6 years ago | (#24856591)

It applies to the browser if you have the option to send usage stats and crash reports automatically. This means that they will get the sites you go to will be known.

Whether or not this is something to be afraid of is another matter. Basically it is a 'phone home' sort of device.

sounds like the gpl (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856397)

business as usual in the GPL world by losing all rights to your own work.

forget the fine print - it's phones home like mad (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856405)

This thing is lighting up my firewall constantly, during install, operation and uninstall.

Even after uninstall it leaves GoogleUpdate.exe installed and running and pinging google every hour.

I'm sticking with Firefox 3.1's javascript compiler instead:
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/

Google sniffing your clicks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856411)

Google Chrome is (by default) logging user actions and reporting them back to Google. Check the browser options, the last tab (under the hood)!!

I wonder if they will track the privacy mode, too...

Could someone use the browser and check what information it is actually sending to the Google servers?

Re:Google sniffing your clicks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856447)

Google Chrome is (by default) logging user actions and reporting them back to Google. Check the browser options, the last tab (under the hood)!!

I wonder if they will track the privacy mode, too...

Could someone use the browser and check what information it is actually sending to the Google servers?

A screenshot for the unhappy few not having access to MS Windows machines would be nice ;-)

Re:Google sniffing your clicks (1)

bignetbuy (1105123) | about 6 years ago | (#24856531)

"A screenshot for the happy few not having access to MS Windows machines would be nice ;-)"

Fixed your typo...

Scary (1)

Candid88 (1292486) | about 6 years ago | (#24856421)

Yikes, that is one scary EULA.

I can never understand why so many people are paranoid about giving even the smallest scraps of information to the government yet will happily let companies like Google (world leaders in data-mining and info extraction) have unrestricted access to all their most private data.

Whilst I join most people in laughing at those who foresee government putting barcodes on our foreheads etc., I really doubt it's long before we start seeing a 'Gcode' on people.

Wake up everyone, this is where the real frightening privacy infringements are taking place!

Re:Scary (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | about 6 years ago | (#24856515)

The difference being, we can bring down governments with just Tea. With corporations we have to use lawyers, I know which I would prefer to use in a fight.

Re:Scary (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 6 years ago | (#24856533)

Maybe because Google just uses the info to allow you to customise things and target ads towards you which is actually beneficial to you.

Where as the government will use it to hunt you down, probably send you to Iraq and tax you to death. I'd trust my data with most companies long before I'd trust the government.

They're already running trials of RFID tags in people. If you think the government will use that for your benefit then you're having a laugh.

Re:Scary (4, Insightful)

Candid88 (1292486) | about 6 years ago | (#24856575)

And if you think google are just using the information "to allow you to customise things and target ads towards you" then you're having a laugh.

At least government is bound by freedom-of-information acts, elections etc. so we can actually find out about things like RFID tags. There's absolutely no way to tell what Google are up to with the data.

Re:Scary (3, Insightful)

swordgeek (112599) | about 6 years ago | (#24856615)

Hmm. Which government is this, bound to follow their own laws? The police state is spreading through the western world, and I'm not seeing many governments willing to be constrained anymore.

Re:Scary (1)

Candid88 (1292486) | about 6 years ago | (#24856683)

Um, which western government exactly doesn't hold elections anymore?

Re:Scary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856703)

Even if Google was good, and nothing but non-evil, they're still a US-based company, falling under the US laws and government. 'nuff said.

Re:Scary (1)

pipatron (966506) | about 6 years ago | (#24856717)

can never understand why so many people are paranoid about giving even the smallest scraps of information to the government yet will happily let companies like Google (world leaders in data-mining and info extraction) have unrestricted access to all their most private data.

Because I can choose to avoid Google. I can not choose to avoid my government.

Re:Scary (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856751)

The US is a strange place. People here want freedom from the goverment and have this idea in the back of their heads of some sort of Matrix style world springing up anyday.

I remember when I moved here from Russia 5 years ago and mortage, loan, cell-phone, health insurance etc. In many ways I felt far less "free" than when living under communism (if I didn't pay $x every month I would be locked up and left to rot!).

We pride ourselves on "freedom" form the goverment but our Corporation's on the other hand impose some of the most oppressive rules on customers than anywhere in the world.

Very few places in the world can a company sue you just for quiting your job. Very few places in the world can companies dictate exactly how you can live your life or else you don't receive basic healthcare. It's a strange, strange place.

yes but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856441)

can i run adblock on it??

But but but (1)

David Gerard (12369) | about 6 years ago | (#24856487)

But they're not evil [today.com] ! They said so! So it must be all right then.

Guck Foogle (1, Insightful)

asackett (161377) | about 6 years ago | (#24856489)

Google is a commercial enterprise... 'nuff sed.

Boilerplate TOS (4, Insightful)

speakerbomb (1319693) | about 6 years ago | (#24856495)

How is Google going to "reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute the content you submit, post or display on Chrome"? It sounds boilerplate to me (which is kind of surprising, since you'd think Google would have a crack legal team banging one out before Chrome's release).

Open source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856507)

1. Get and compile source
2. Release without an EULA
3. ???
4. Profit!

dominiation (2, Insightful)

hbshbs (1356539) | about 6 years ago | (#24856517)

saying that every information we upload using this software may be used by google means they have to log this data somewhere. and they do ask if you want to send information about the use of the browser but you can refuse. i do believe that they wouldn't collect information using the browser itself since it's a complicated task that will consume alot of web traffic and space. as already said they have much better ways doing so with their other web applications, all the chrome idea is to make ppl trust the web applications better, and make it easier to use hence more ppl use the google web apps ---> more info on google servers ---> more info google can use to do what the hell they want with... p/s/ it is a demonic eula... worst than a mortgage one.

huh? (1)

nrgins (1353037) | about 6 years ago | (#24856535)

That doesn't even make sense. I'm agreeing to allow them to use what I VIEW in the browser? The browser is for viewing, not uploading. Something's not right.

Re:huh? (1)

pipatron (966506) | about 6 years ago | (#24856723)

Just press "Cancel". You'll get the download anyway.

Googolomania (2, Funny)

sciop101 (583286) | about 6 years ago | (#24856537)

Google: "We can coexist, but only on my terms. The choice is yours: Obey me and live, or disobey and die."

Skynet has been launched... (2, Funny)

datalife (17290) | about 6 years ago | (#24856557)

All your (data)base are belong to us.

I AM SO HAPPY! (5, Funny)

hyperz69 (1226464) | about 6 years ago | (#24856581)

This is totally awesome and fair! This is the best thing to happen on the internet! GOOGLE IS THE BEST COMPANY EVER!

"Posted with Chrome, edited for content by Google"

Speaking of the cloud - I HATE it !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856629)

I don't hate the cloud. I'm only leery of systems in which the individual loses control of his or her own data, software, and other necessities. When the desktop revolution began, it was all about control--wresting control away from others and keeping it to ourselves. That's the major, overriding trend of modern computing, but it doesn't mean there should be no clouds or networks.

People have to differentiate between the usefulness of cloud computing where there are no alternatives and cloud computing where a desktop alternative exists. A perfect example of this is word processing: It's done better locally.

On top of that, users must evaluate cloud computing in situations calling more for convenience than for control. E-mail is a good example: It's often more convenient to look at it on the remote mail server than continually download it to the local machine, since that process adds complexity and inconvenience.

There are other examples of convenience. I recently downloaded a WordPress plug-in that was in a folder compressed using the gzip app. The file itself was compressed with tar. I have no tools for working with a file of this type and would have to seek out and download some shareware or commercial software. Now this is not in itself impossible, but it does take time and effort. There's an overabundance of crap for sale, and until you try a product you don't know if it even works. This is a bigger hassle than it should be. Finding sites that review utilities is even more painful. So instead I simply use the cloud. WobZIP will take an uploaded compressed file, decompress it, and send it back to you normalized as a ZIP file.

With a cloud-based utility I don't have to deal with nagware, Registry clogging, spyware, or any number of issues that crop up when your system is filled with the useless junk you've downloaded and installed. And, yes, I would use a cloud-based word processor in a pinch. But generally speaking, my take on cloud utilities is that they are best for occasional use, when you need to do some chore only once or twice.

People should be on the lookout for gems like WobZIP. And you should note that this sort of software is no substitute for a local solution if you constantly need to decompress files. Local is always better.

Beyond simple convenience, the other good reason for cloud computing arises when there is no local solution that compares with what you can do on a mainframe in the sky. An example is the specialty systems implemented by NetSuite, for CMS and other functions. Actually NetSuite is like a cloud alternative to SAP in many ways. And it's just not doable on a desktop PC. Neither is SAP, for that matter, although I've often wondered why SAP has not made some sort of training-wheels software that would run standalone on a common PC. But I digress.

Salesforce.com is another example of the cloud making sense. I suspect that when Microsoft finally takes the plunge it will be with products like this, especially Salesforce and other groupware initiatives based on the Lotus Notes proto-cloud software that people still use. Microsoft has the Lotus Notes architect working at the company just for this reason.

But when a cloud solution is offered, you have to ask yourself if you can get a standalone app that will do this as well, or better. And especially consider the performance aspect. I still grind my teeth over the excessive delays that invariably come and go with cloud-based e-mail, due to Net congestion. Combine increasing Net usage and new Internet users with online cloud apps and SaaS and you have a situation that is not likely to improve, ever. There will forever be performance issues.

And, of course, you must always consider the worst-case scenarios. I use the plural because too many things can go wrong. What happens if the company simply folds? Many SaaS initiatives will tell you that you'll get your data. But what about the apps? I know this is unlikely for many of these firms, but exactly how do you continue using a product locally when it couldn't be run locally in the first place? And that assumes you even get software to run.

Generally speaking, someone probably will pick up the old system and save you, but at what cost to you? What if the guy who now runs the cloud apps decides to triple the fees? I hate to think this way, but I often wonder how you could lock someone into a complex cloud application, dominate the market, remove all competition, then jack up the prices like crazy. Let's face it, it's the way things work. Microsoft isn't getting into cloud computing in hopes of making less money from its customers, is it?

Nothing like this has become an issue, yet. I think that's because there is a healthy dose of skepticism permeating the scene, and people do sense that desktop apps are king. They think that because in a flaky high-tech world, independence just seems like a better idea than reverting back to the old-fashioned dependency relationship: IBM took all your money and you had to like it that way or else. And in essence, cloud computing is nothing more than a modernized version of that old model.

Sheesh.....complain guys.....they DO listen (2, Insightful)

Danathar (267989) | about 6 years ago | (#24856685)

1. BETA..Beta..BETA (although their use of "Beta" is a bit stretched I know).

2. Complain, email, Complain!! - Google DOES listen generally (they may not write back, but people do pay attention)

What a way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856695)

...for these Google guys to get free access to pr0n accounts. Probably a stunt from the HR guys to attract more nerdy whizzkids. Gives a whole new perspective on "carpet bombing" if you ask me.....

No kids allowed either! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856705)

2.3 You may not use the Services and may not accept the Terms if (a) you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with Google, ...

Apparently kids are not allowed to use chrome.

Fuck google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856721)

Google tries to prove in their chrome propaganda that the web is where all applications are.

No, computers run applications, not the web, or your fucking company or your fucking browser.

FUCK GOOGLE. We want computers to run our programs not "the web".

Evil? (1)

N8F8 (4562) | about 6 years ago | (#24856725)

Sounds a little evil to me. Hope they fix it.

Google iPhone app (1)

yabos (719499) | about 6 years ago | (#24856735)

Has anyone read the EULA in the Google iPhone application? It also says you give up all your rights to let Google use your information for whatever purpose they want. The fact that it even has a EULA while just about every other app on the phone does not at least makes it stand out so that more people might actually read it. I installed it once but deleted it after reading the EULA.

Reading Google Chrome's Fine Print (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24856737)

Reading Google Chrome's Fine Print... sounds like that's exactly what they *didn't* do.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>