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!

Google Updates Chrome's Terms of Service

timothy posted about 6 years ago | from the credit-where-due dept.

Google 318

centuren writes "In response to the reaction to Chrome's terms of service, Google has truncated the offending Section 11, apologizing for the oversight. The new Section 11 contains only the first sentence included in their Universal Terms of Service, now stating: 'You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.'"

cancel ×

318 comments

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

Google Chrome (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24882241)

Its icon looks like an anal bead.

Re:Google Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24882289)

LOL... I have a dark appreciation for the trolls which are at least kind of funny. Bravo!

Well that sounds reasonable. (5, Funny)

bigtallmofo (695287) | about 6 years ago | (#24882265)

So far we've gotten an apology and a quick amendment that eliminates the offending clause. Now we just need for the group responsible for the oversight to be fired and one or two sacrificial killings and we'll call it even.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (4, Insightful)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 6 years ago | (#24882435)

Haven't you ever been lazy and just copy-and-pasted some code to somewhere else? Don't lie. That is probably what happened here~

Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24882495)

Whoooosh

Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (5, Insightful)

cdrudge (68377) | about 6 years ago | (#24882759)

Sure I've copied/reused code. But when I do I usually make sure I understand what it does and works correctly. I also don't work for a mega corporation that has entire brigades of lawyers to get paid to look at these very things. Google apparently didn't understand what it meant nor had any of the many lawyers who get paid to look at these types of things actually look at it.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (5, Insightful)

hahafaha (844574) | about 6 years ago | (#24882863)

Do keep in mind that the thing is barely in beta. They're not really releasing it to the public. Besides, it's basically unenforceable, since the code is under a BSD license.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (5, Informative)

Konster (252488) | about 6 years ago | (#24882931)

It's available for download on their main page. This seems to me that they really are releasing it to the public.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (0, Offtopic)

siyavash (677724) | about 6 years ago | (#24882977)

Informative for sure... got no mod points though. :(

Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (1)

powerspike (729889) | about 6 years ago | (#24883001)

it's right under the search bar on their main page, and it's marked as beta, which means it's a full release for them ? that's more of public release then anything else they have had isn't it ?

Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (1)

Irish_Samurai (224931) | about 6 years ago | (#24883109)

it's right under the search bar on their main page

I understand that there is a difference between releasing an OS and having a browser set as default and adding a link on your main page to your browser, but at which point can we start discussing that this is in the same ballpark.

Google has a serious hold on the search market, just as Microsoft has a serious hold on the OS market (which its losing). Isn't putting a link to your browser on your main search page just a little bit in that gray "leveraging" area?

Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (3, Interesting)

eggnet (75425) | about 6 years ago | (#24883033)

What does the tilde mean? I've seen it a lot lately.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24883159)

Some people are trying to make it a new punctuation mark to indicate sarcasm.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (2, Funny)

fishthegeek (943099) | about 6 years ago | (#24883149)

Hmmm.... work for D-Link do you?

What Will Firefox Fanboys Do Now? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24882439)

Spamming every news and discussion board on the Net with fake hysterics over that simple cut and paste mistake was the only thing the Firefox fans could try to do to stop the flood of people dumping Firefox for Chrome?

What they hell are the hardcore Firefox fans going to do now?

Re:What Will Firefox Fanboys Do Now? (5, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | about 6 years ago | (#24882489)

Umm, nice try troll. It was a genuine concern. The clause had the potential to be a huge land grab. It's hard to say whether it was an accident or they really got the message but it's been fixed. It's not the only time it's happened. I seem to remember both Apple and MS trying that sort of thing in the past, it's a bit easier to believe that Google just made a mistake though.

Firefox users are not going to switch to Chrome. It's just inane to suggest that's the case. It doesn't run on anything other than Windows at this point, and it looks like it's going to be a pain to be ported to anything else.

On the resource side of things, they're going to have to make a significant amount of improvement to be competitive with Firefox on performance. Sure web surfing is apparently faster, but that's against the 3.0 release and neglects the impact of memory hogging and the tweaks coming down the pipe in 3.1.

Or to put it another way, it's premature to suggest that Chrome is going to be stealing Firefox users. More likely they'll be stealing IE users away. Might very well slow adoptin of Firefox, but it's unlikely to make a significant impact.

Re:What Will Firefox Fanboys Do Now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24882567)

Umm, nice try troll. It was a genuine concern. The clause had the potential to be a huge land grab. It's hard to say whether it was an accident or they really got the message but it's been fixed. It's not the only time it's happened. I seem to remember both Apple and MS trying that sort of thing in the past, it's a bit easier to believe that Google just made a mistake though.

The explanation is quite simple, actually - this is, plain and simple, what happens when lawyers do anything. They always try to push it farther than fairness would dictate, and in a lot of cases they push it beyond the boundaries of what the company is really willing to stand behind, just because they always err on the side of screwing-over-the-other-guy.

Of course, that's why you hire lawyers. But in this situation, I'm sure whoever was in charge of that section of the agreement is in some hot water, as it's a pretty embarrassing overstepping of bounds for a company that really wants to not be evil.

Re:What Will Firefox Fanboys Do Now? (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | about 6 years ago | (#24883123)

yea, i really couldn't see google using that part of the agreement to "steal the copyright of users" as everyone seemed to be suggesting. it just seemed like they were trying to protect themselves against liability for their online services, many of which deal with the reproduction, manipulation, and public displaying of user-contributed content. facebook has similar clauses in their user agreements as well--as do i'm sure most social networking sites.

Re:What Will Firefox Fanboys Do Now? (1)

AaronW (33736) | about 6 years ago | (#24882745)

I may switch when they release a stable Linux version since Firefox tends to grab lots of resources and never release them. By making each tab a separate process it makes freeing up memory much cleaner when a tab is closed. It's also a big plus when plug-ins don't take down the whole browser when things go badly.

Re:What Will Firefox Fanboys Do Now? (1, Insightful)

Al Dimond (792444) | about 6 years ago | (#24882903)

I'm not very optimistic about Chrome for Linux being much more than a careless port. I haven't tried all of Google's Linux offerings but I've used Earth, and it's pretty clunky (and always way behind the Windows version for features; as I recall, like with Chrome, it was Windows-only at first and they took their sweet time porting it). Furthermore, Chrome (according to the gmail blog... I don't have a Windows installation to test on) doesn't even run on Vista or 64-bit Windows. If they cared about making it a cross-platform app that would have been part of the architecture from the beginning and it should have been downright trivial to get it running on different versions of Windows.

I'd be glad to have a browser keep its various tabs and windows separate. I'd be gladder if we hadn't turned the web into an application platform in the first place.

Re:What Will Firefox Fanboys Do Now? (4, Informative)

Mandelbrot-5 (471417) | about 6 years ago | (#24882951)

I'm running xp-64 and run Chrome just fine.

Re:What Will Firefox Fanboys Do Now? (5, Informative)

onlysolution (941392) | about 6 years ago | (#24882959)

Chrome works just fine for me on Vista64 and integrates very slickly with Aero Glass. If you look at the build requirements it lists the Vista SDK, so frankly I'd be pretty amused if it didn't work on on Vista.

Re:What Will Firefox Fanboys Do Now? (2, Informative)

vandit2k6 (848077) | about 6 years ago | (#24882993)

What are you smoking. I am running Chrome on Vista fine.

Re:What Will Firefox Fanboys Do Now? (2, Interesting)

jonnythan (79727) | about 6 years ago | (#24882935)

I've used nothing but Firefox for years.

I switched to Chrome, and I'm not looking back. It's that much better.

So, it's stolen *one* Firefox user.

Re:What Will Firefox Fanboys Do Now? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24883041)

Then you apparently didn't make much use of plugins.

Re:What Will Firefox Fanboys Do Now? (2, Interesting)

jonnythan (79727) | about 6 years ago | (#24883117)

I used AdBlock Plus, Pennypacker, and FxIF.

But Chrome is so much better I can live without those for the time being.

Re:What Will Firefox Fanboys Do Now? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24882549)

SpAMmIng every news and discussion boArd on the Net with Fake hysteRIcs over that simple Cut and paste mistaKe was the only thINg The FiRefox fans cOuLd try to do to stop the fLood of people dumping Firefox fOR Chrome?

WHAT they hell are the hardcore Firefox fans going to do now?

We already know, you just keep telling us..

Re:What Will Firefox Fanboys Do Now? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24882579)

Don't worry troll, just hug your copy of Firefox and rock back and forth mumbling:

"this is not happening"
"this is not happening"
"this is not happening"
"this is not happening" ...

Re:What Will Firefox Fanboys Do Now? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24882779)

Don't worry troll, just hug your copy of FIrEfox and rock back And forTh mumbling:

"this is not hapPening"
"this is nOt happeNing"
"thIs is not happEning"
"this iS not happening" ...

It's OK now, it's OK...

Re:What Will Firefox Fanboys Do Now? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24882765)

That's not the only thing that prevents Firefox users from using chrome. The other two big things are the lack of add-ons and Windows exclusivity, both subject to change. As soon as Chrome has a decent enough equivalent to Adblock and Noscript, and maybe better keyboard-only navigation, I'll be all over it.

Re:What Will Firefox Fanboys Do Now? (2, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 6 years ago | (#24882835)

Spamming every news and discussion board on the Net with fake hysterics over that simple cut and paste mistake was the only thing the Firefox fans could try to do to stop the flood of people dumping Firefox for Chrome?

I still can't picture Chrome actually causing a 'flood' of people instantaneously dumping any browser. It's neat, but not that exciting.

Re:What Will Firefox Fanboys Do Now? (1)

i.of.the.storm (907783) | about 6 years ago | (#24883021)

Yeah, it doesn't really offer much besides tabs in separate processes and fast JS, neither of which is as important to me as features such as live bookmarks in firefox, and of course extensions. I've gotten to the point where I can't browse without certain extensions such as LiveClick and TabMixPlus. I don't think any browser will be able to match Firefox in its extensibility unless they adopt something similar to XUL, despite what people seem to think Chrome will offer eventually.

Re:What Will Firefox Fanboys Do Now? (0)

afidel (530433) | about 6 years ago | (#24883049)

Unless they seriously change things it won't be used in any sane corporate environment, it requires JRE6 U10 which isn't even freaking officially release yet! It's beyond bleeding edge, it's just crazy.

Almost too reasonable (2)

Nymz (905908) | about 6 years ago | (#24882555)

Well that sounds reasonable.

Whenever a company can alter a previous agreement, declare all changes retroactive, and require me visit a webpage constantly as the method of notification, then reasonable is the first word that springs to my mind too.

fire them indeed (4, Insightful)

seanadams.com (463190) | about 6 years ago | (#24882597)

The thing is, the language itself was not the most offensive part of this.

What is most offensive is the way these bastards write these absurdly one-sided "agreements", assuming the benefit that if anything is unenforceable it will only selectively be struck, and just pass off their standard shit with every single product assuming nobody will ever read it.

Good thing we have the internets to call them on it this time, but shame on them for doing it in the first place. And not just google, but damn near every tech company. The only reason they fixed it was because the high profile of the product. It's still evil.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (5, Funny)

prestomation (583502) | about 6 years ago | (#24882641)

"We apologise again for the fault in the
TOS. Those responsible for sacking
the people who have just been sacked,
have been sacked."

Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (5, Funny)

enoz (1181117) | about 6 years ago | (#24882755)

"The directors of the firm hired to amend the TOS after the other people had been sacked, wish it to be known that they have just been sacked."

Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (3, Funny)

darthdavid (835069) | about 6 years ago | (#24882809)

A moose bit my sister once.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (3, Funny)

prestomation (583502) | about 6 years ago | (#24883135)

"No realli! She was Karving her initials Ãn the mÃÃse with the sharpened end
    of an interspace tÃÃthbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law -an Oslo
    dentist and star of many Norwegian mÃvies: "The HÃt Hands of an Oslo
    Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge MÃlars of Horst Nordfink"... "

Re:Well that sounds reasonable. (0)

destiney (149922) | about 6 years ago | (#24883039)

I quite enjoyed reading your comment.

TOS (1, Funny)

fhic (214533) | about 6 years ago | (#24882269)

Just when I want to start thinking about them as evil, they have an outbreak of common sense and do the right thing.

Oh well. I still think they're too big and have too much of my data stored away, but I'll let go of the paranoia. Until the next time. :-)

Re:TOS (1)

denmarkw00t (892627) | about 6 years ago | (#24882313)

they have a sudden outbreak of common sense

Fixed

Re:TOS (5, Insightful)

Vectronic (1221470) | about 6 years ago | (#24882379)

No, the OP had it right, its just an "outbreak"... saying a sudden outbreak is redundant.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outbreak [merriam-webster.com]

Main Entry:
outbreak
Function:
noun
Date:
1602

1 a: a sudden or violent increase in activity or currency
b: a sudden rise in the incidence of a disease
c: a sudden increase in numbers of a harmful organism and especially an insect within a particular area

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+outbreak [google.com]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/outbreak [reference.com]

etc, etc...

Re:TOS (1)

denmarkw00t (892627) | about 6 years ago | (#24882707)

Fixed as in on the /. level - you know how we like to tag things here.

Re:TOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24882857)

whoooooosh

Re:TOS (1, Insightful)

suso (153703) | about 6 years ago | (#24882413)

While I believe that it could be a mistake on their part. The fact that it was "an oversight" doesn't make sense to me. I mean if they just took some boilerplate EULA, then obviously a lot of thought didn't go into it. But if they wrote it from scratch, then I'd think that they were trying to get away with something, or that not everyone at Google agrees on not being evil.

Re:TOS (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24882467)

They took the standard EULA that they use for everything, and slapped it on - it was the easiest thing for the programmers to do at the time, no thought required, just use the standard legal mumbo-jumbo. An understandable mistake, and they've corrected it.

Re:TOS (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | about 6 years ago | (#24882503)

Umm, that's what a boilerplate is for. For pretty much any other service they have it would have been fine. Or at least in keeping with the competition.

The only reason why it's a problem is because this is one of like two things they're providing where it's not appropriate. Google has a much larger number of projects for which a clause like that is pretty much mandatory to provide the service.

Re:TOS (-1)

owlnation (858981) | about 6 years ago | (#24882749)

While I believe that it could be a mistake on their part. The fact that it was "an oversight" doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, I agree. Google employs many lawyers. One of them MUST have signed off on the TOS before it went live. This was a conscious decision. Corporations just don't copy and past legal stuff -- EVER. Someone in Google liked the original TOS.

Re:TOS (4, Informative)

conlaw (983784) | about 6 years ago | (#24882819)

Corporations just don't copy and past legal stuff -- EVER.

As a past member of three corporate legal departments, I'm ROFL at this quote. Most contracts start as boilerplate and only get changed through negotiation between the parties.

Re:TOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24883157)

As a past member of the other side, I'm with you brother. Boilerplate and some changes was a hell of a lot cheaper than starting from scratch. As the vendor, there wasn't much choice anyways.

Re:TOS (3, Funny)

Merusdraconis (730732) | about 6 years ago | (#24882897)

I have a copy of the PC game Morrowind whose EULA explicitly prevents me from using it.

I'm pretty sure it's down to copy-paste.

Re:TOS (2, Informative)

jrp2 (458093) | about 6 years ago | (#24882907)

While I believe that it could be a mistake on their part. The fact that it was "an oversight" doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, I agree. Google employs many lawyers. One of them MUST have signed off on the TOS before it went live. This was a conscious decision. Corporations just don't copy and past legal stuff -- EVER. Someone in Google liked the original TOS.

Kinda doubt it. Lawyers are rarely involved in the quality and release process. Not unless there is a debate or concern and they are called in by someone more involved with the product.

They would have certainly approved a boilerplate at some point, and would usually be called in if someone actually noticed the problem and wanted to modify it. But I have never heard of any tech company including legal in the test and release process as a standard practice.

Also, getting marketing, testers and developers to review doc is usually like pulling teeth. They would almost never more than glance at a EULA, warranty statement or something like that.

So do they... (5, Interesting)

Leptok (1096623) | about 6 years ago | (#24882273)

relinquish rights to the stuff that may have been created before the update?

Re:So do they... (0, Flamebait)

JeremyBanks (1036532) | about 6 years ago | (#24882369)

No, they said that this change would be applied retroactively.

Re:So do they... (4, Informative)

Evanisincontrol (830057) | about 6 years ago | (#24882961)

[so do they] relinquish rights to the stuff that may have been created before the update?

No, they said that this change would be applied retroactively.

...right, and since "retroactively" means [answers.com] "Influencing or applying to a period prior to enactment", that would make the answer yes, not no. How did this get moderated informative?

Re:So do they... (1)

i.of.the.storm (907783) | about 6 years ago | (#24883035)

I think GP is confused about who they is, so you're both right.

Re:So do they... (1)

Evanisincontrol (830057) | about 6 years ago | (#24883093)

I see your point. My assumption was that since JeremyBanks said "they" to mean "Google", that he would also have thought Leptok (the OP) meant "Google".

It was complicated just trying to agree with you. Pronouns are the devil.

Re:So do they... (1)

Twinbee (767046) | about 6 years ago | (#24882407)

Erm, assume yes, otherwise they'd get just a slightly bad image from the public maybe? (ignoring they'd do the moral thing anyway).

Have to remember also, it's just as boring to write these things as it is to read them. Apparently they did a copy/paste of the old ones, hence the initial blunder.

Re:So do they... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24882659)

Yes, this change applies retroactively.

Re:So do they... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24882663)

yes...

The new terms will of course be retroactive, and will cover everyone who has downloaded Google Chrome since it was launched

Re:So do they... (1)

dscaife (1230360) | about 6 years ago | (#24883007)

From TFA (Google's official blog):

The new terms will of course be retroactive, and will cover everyone who has downloaded Google Chrome since it was launched.

Re:So do they... (1)

darkmeridian (119044) | about 6 years ago | (#24883099)

The change is supposed to be retroactive, according to their blogger. Since Google is the party giving up a contractual right, they are barred from enforcing that right based on estoppel.

This is why I wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24882321)

This is why I wait a while to download new software. You never know what might be wrong with it.

Now if only the uninstaller would really uninstall (3, Interesting)

GuyverDH (232921) | about 6 years ago | (#24882357)

If you uninstall Chrome, it leaves a few google'isms behind...

Like googleupdate and a few other registry entries... /sigh...

time to reload Winbloze...

Re:Now if only the uninstaller would really uninst (2, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | about 6 years ago | (#24882461)

So basically you're saying it doesn't pass Mirosoft application certification procedures?

What a surprise.

Re:Now if only the uninstaller would really uninst (2, Informative)

GuyverDH (232921) | about 6 years ago | (#24882795)

while yes, that was implied, I was actually stating that google left major chunks behind, running and collecting information to send to the mothership...

most applications may end up leaving an abandoned entry in the registry - not full paths in your local applications area, with entries in the startup....

ie - and to a poster further down... yes - I submitted a bug report regarding the uninstall that didn't actually uninstall....

Re:Now if only the uninstaller would really uninst (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 6 years ago | (#24882535)

Almost any software program does that, why? Because the Windows registry is an absolute pain. Its like saying that apt-get remove still leaves some files behind. Unfortunately there isn't an apt-get purge function for Windows.

Re:Now if only the uninstaller would really uninst (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24883121)

So what? If you're going to be anal over left behind registry entries, then you have other, non-computer related issues that require some serious attention.

Re:Now if only the uninstaller would really uninst (3, Interesting)

Fastolfe (1470) | about 6 years ago | (#24882595)

Did you file a bug?

That was easy.... (1)

FooGoo (98336) | about 6 years ago | (#24882381)

good thing they can't change their terms of servitude anytime they want.

You must agree to.... [CLICK] (5, Insightful)

Nick Driver (238034) | about 6 years ago | (#24882415)

See.... nobody, not even Google themselves ever reads the freakin' legal boilerplate crap you have to click on to install software.

But.. (5, Insightful)

beaverbrother (586749) | about 6 years ago | (#24882451)

It's open source. Just remove the terms of service and recompile.

Re:But.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24882527)

Parent was modded funny but should have been modded informative. You can do this.

Re:But.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24882561)

I agree, but the funny cannot be denied. He'll have to make-do with underrated.

Re:But.. (4, Informative)

Repton (60818) | about 6 years ago | (#24882545)

Why is this modded "Funny"? The code is under a BSD license. You can do exactly that.

Heck, I'm surprised there's no community project out there to provide an EULA-free Chrome fork.

Re:But.. (4, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 6 years ago | (#24882585)

Heck, I'm surprised there's no community project out there to provide an EULA-free Chrome fork.

2 main reasons. Right now, Chrome is essentially Windows only, and as we know, most people who use Windows don't care about EULAs. And secondly, Chrome isn't used much, right now people are wondering if it is the future or nothing more then a nice experiment, if Chrome stays around then expect Debian to fork it like they did with Mozilla. If it dies, expect a very small fork to continue development of it.

Re:But.. (2, Interesting)

TwistedSymmetry (1354405) | about 6 years ago | (#24882723)

I'm sure "Chrome" is trademarked, and Google would certainly enforce its trademark if it chose to. This would be one way to sort of enforce the EULA: Don't allow the recompiled versions to be called Chrome.

Linux distros are undoubtedly going to want to compile their own version, in addition to wanting to be free of the EULA (which is non-free).

I wonder what Google will do about this? They either have to ditch the EULA (at least for linux), or be content with a re-branded version of their browser being bundled with linux distributions.

I wonder how important the EULA is to Google, anyway? I personally don't understand why they feel they need one in the first place.

Re:But.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24882801)

The EULA doesn't apply to the open source project chromium, it's only for the binary version of chrome.

You just gotta hate BSD-style licences

Re:But.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24883081)

chrome seems to work on everything I have tested it with ... even citrix web client ( surprise here ).

I like the downloads attached to the page that invoked the download .. cool.

Haven't opened more than 10 tabs - I have ADD & OCD but if you have more than 10 tabs open at a time ... there's something more wrong with you. :)

Re:But.. (5, Insightful)

Jangchub (1139089) | about 6 years ago | (#24882647)

Mod parent up. I played around with Chrome and was impressed at its speed (except for Pandora *vomits*) and was taken in by the minimalistic interface. I have no gripe with the awesome-bar or whatever lame title it has either. Once some extensions materialize for this (noscript/adblock) it's going to be a decent browser. I'm not too concerned about the memory usage as all my main machines are less than five years old. This might be a cake-and-eat-it-too situation if a community project forms to do as parent describes. It makes me wonder if someone at google is not only 'not being evil' but wants to do something benevolent.

HA! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24882469)

Did anyone else see Slashdot go 500 for the last 30 minutes?

Good job Master Pater!

Sane legal system please?? (4, Insightful)

lcoscare (1121345) | about 6 years ago | (#24882483)

Can't we have a legal system that would just dismiss something so rediculous and unreasonable??? You know, something to protect the people?? They could have put "by agreeing, we will assume the deed to your house", and I'm sure the number of downloads wouldn't have changed.

Re:Sane legal system please?? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24882601)

It's never been used in court. There's no requirement that the courts approve every legal document before it's made public.

This is already a major concern with EULAs, actually -- there are restrictions on how much you can really sign away, especially if it's a document that you don't sign, that nobody witnesses, that you only sort of have an opportunity to disagree with, and that everyone knows that nobody reads. Many clauses in EULAs are assumed not to be able to hold up in court. The likelihood that this one would be is slim at best (considering they have no way to track what information was posted using Chrome, that it's enormously wide-sweeping, and it's trivially circumvented by downloading the source and compiling).

Re:Sane legal system please?? (1)

maxume (22995) | about 6 years ago | (#24882677)

The legal system never got involved here.

Re:Sane legal system please?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24882879)

They could have put "by agreeing, we will assume the deed to your house", and I'm sure the number of downloads wouldn't have changed.

Do you think that would really stand up in court? Really?

And if you really, honestly do (and don't just say "Yes!" to be reactionary) can you provide an example where someone has pulled that kind of trick and got away with it?

Don't be silly (5, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | about 6 years ago | (#24882583)

All this is scaremongering. Your confidential business data, bank account details, personal preferences in pornography, medical records and DNA sequence are strictly a matter between you and Google's marketing department, and no-one else. Remember, they're not evil! [today.com]

Legality (3, Interesting)

RockMFR (1022315) | about 6 years ago | (#24882637)

The uproar and resulting change by Google has me thinking - what is the legality of all of this?
  • Would the Chrome TOS hold any weight at all in a court?
  • Would the former section 11 hold any weight? Could Google really have claimed a license to anything sent via the browser? (or whatever)
  • Under the current section 11, is there any way Google could still claim a license on future submissions via the browser?
  • The blog posting says this is retroactive. Would this statement hold any weight if Google went on to claim a license to anything sent via the browser?

Re:Legality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24883079)

  • Yes, Goog gives the gov't all the info they need. It's only fair they would turn around and scratch G's back.
  • Yes, because they already have the system in place to record every submission you make on any site on the internet. Unless you can find the super duper secret checkbox to opt out. Hurry, their dossier on you is growing.
  • Yes, they keep the system in place, and take away the checkbox. And get the gov't to force you to use the browser.
  • No, it's their's. You no longer have the rights to all the meaningful things you posted in the last two days.

Secret Sauce (5, Funny)

TheModelEskimo (968202) | about 6 years ago | (#24882709)

Hmmm, let's see...

1. Loudly complain about annoying features in the beta stage
2. Watch as company removes said features because they're in vulnerable position
3. Rinse and repeat on other products
4. Realize why so many corporations fight for control of the media
5. Start your own local newspaper
6. ?
7. Go out of business because nobody reads newspapers anymore, you moron

A victory for common sense (2, Insightful)

Draek (916851) | about 6 years ago | (#24882769)

The cynics may say that they only backed down from their powergrab due to the media attention, the optimists may say that they did it because Google always listen to their customers, and the rest of us may not care *why* they did it, either way we finally get a cool new browser to play with, without risking our privacy in the process, and there's one less stupid EULA in this world.

Now, if only Apple would let me use iTunes to develop biological WMDs...

Assuming that it was stupid rather than evil (-1, Offtopic)

ClosedSource (238333) | about 6 years ago | (#24882775)

Being able to solve toy problems and answer trick questions during an interview doesn't mean you'll make a competent employee.

IP (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24882823)

Your mom's so ugly, if you gave each one of her hairs an IP address, you would exhaust the IP address space. THE IPV6 ADDRESS SPACE. ------ What were we talking about?

Re:IP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24882893)

I lol'd

Google's TOS are still invasive (1, Redundant)

networkzombie (921324) | about 6 years ago | (#24882997)

Sure, you get to keep the copyright, but after we use your material for our own purposes you will have to take us to court to prove you own the copyright. This is what happens when you use an over the wire service, be it an ASP model EMR or your cable provider reading your email. It is not private and this TOS proves it.

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.

I like having my data on my hard drives on my backup discs. You can keep you Web 3.0 crap.

PR stunt (1)

siyavash (677724) | about 6 years ago | (#24882999)

Come'on, I don't believe this hype. I think it was perhaps a nice PR stunt to keep the browser name comming up on news sites. Keeping the buzz alive, Apple does it all the time! :) ...Surely as a big corp. like Google, you don't just copy/paste TOS! Specially since they been working on it for a while and obviously pushing it real hard ( the front page of Google ).

Some marketing person is probably laughing all the way to the bank right now. Although I never ever actually seen ANYONE laughing going to or comming from the bank.

Re:PR stunt (1)

siyavash (677724) | about 6 years ago | (#24883009)

"coming from" ...sorry.

Endangered species (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24883085)

i tried Google chrome for 4 hrs, then i saw that everything was logged !!
uninstalled & they asked why ?!
I typed STOP COLLECTING MY DATA,,
back Firefox. at least i can reduce the amount of data that are being used via gmail or other g services.

ex of Google analytic options:

*** Share my Google Analytics data...

With other Google products only
Enable enhanced ad features and an improved experience with AdWords, AdSense and other Google products
by sharing your website's Google Analytcs data with other Google services.
only Google services (no third parties) will be able to access your data.

*** Anonymously with Google and others

Enable benchmarking by sharing your website data in an anonymous form. Google will remove all identifiable information about your website,
combine the data with hundreds of other anonymous sites in comparable industries and report aggregate trends in the benchmarking service.

What I don't get... (2, Interesting)

rnturn (11092) | about 6 years ago | (#24883153)

... is why there are legal types out there that continue to slip these clauses or sections into legal agreements in the first place. Are they really that stupid that they think that as many times as these terms have been ferreted out and publicized that anyone is going to think "well, okay, I guess it's all right this time"? They don't understand that there enough people on the Internet that there will never be a time when there's no one looking for and exposing these sort of legal shenanigans.

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>