Well, IANAL, but fortunately I have several who read my blog and within an hour of posting on Copyfight I had a response from a lawyer who noted that he found the language unusual as well.
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:17 PM, j. eric townsend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alan Wexelblat wrote: >> Google's EULA for Chrome claims the right to use, redistribute, and >> profit from, any content created in Chrome. > > If so, ow on earth can that be legal, much less enforceable? EULAs are still somewhat gray but generally the court decisions that have been handed down so far tend to find EULA terms to be enforceable voluntary contracts. Nobody says you have to run Chrome - and my guess is that from an enterprise/business point of view it might be deemed too risky. That said, I think that what we're seeing is a first-off cut-and-paste set of terms. They needed something and this was probably just pulled wholesale from the Gmail EULA. I expect those terms to change between now and when Chrome really takes off. Google is aiming Chrome straight at Microsoft Windows (not IE) and if they are serious about that then they'll need to put together legal language that won't set corporate lawyers' teeth on edge. (This is me speaking ex recto - I have no actual information, just speculations.) --Alan ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
