On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 09:40 -0500, Robert Citek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Theresa Kehoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >... 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."
>
> What service? I thought Chrome was a browser.
Ask Google.
> > Also, no AdBlockPlus! (then again, why would Google want to block
> > ads???)
>
> If it's really Open Source, then just give it time.
Ahh, but is it, really? From that flawless unimpeachable source of
perfect "truthiness", Wikipedia:
Licensing
Google Chrome source code is released under a BSD licence. Users of the
executable code version must accept Google Chrome Terms of Service
instead.[11] A Slashdot news item has drawn attention to a passage in
the EULA reading
"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."[12]
The passage in question is inherited from the general Google terms of
service.[13]
So, if it is truly Open Source, then why must you accept their terms of
service in order to use the executable?
Theresa
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Central West End Linux Users Group (via Google Groups)
Main page: http://www.cwelug.org
To post: [email protected]
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More options: http://groups.google.com/group/cwelug
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
