On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 10:23 -0500, Scott Granneman wrote: > This sort of thing has happened before - some overzealous lawyer, or > some techie who isn't paying attention, puts the wrong license on > something. > > It'll change.
Uh huh. And in the meanwhile, if you use it, "all your base are belong to us". Read it again: "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] So, they can not only take MY content (suppose I'm uploading to a blog, or to a photo account even), and use it, they can change it, too. Forever. Irrevocably. Uh uh. Not for me. Oooh, just a thought ... if I log in to my investment account using Chrome, does that give Google the right to my username and password, since the information was submitted to my investors via their web browser? > If you haven't tried it, though, do so - it's ridiculously fast. Can't. Linux household here. > Can't wait to run it on all my machines. > > And yes, someone will come out with an ad-blocker soonish. Why would Google want to block ads? Will a Chrome ad-blocker block Google ads from gmail? Wouldn't that be a hoot!! Theresa > Scott > -- > R. Scott Granneman > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ www.granneman.com > Full list of publications @ http://www.granneman.com/publications > My new book: Linux Phrasebook @ http://www.granneman.com/books > > "The important thing is not to stop questioning." > ---Albert Einstein > > On Sep 3, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Theresa Kehoe wrote: > > > > > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
