On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 19:03:51 +0100 RW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 09:39:01 -0500 > David Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 03:13:35PM +0100, RW wrote: > > > > > > For most people that's already happened, except that it's > > > Adobe-Flash WWW. Google's approach of open-source software, and > > > open-extensions, leading to new standards, sounds a lot better to > > > me. > > > > What about this? > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/03/google_chrome_eula_sucks/ > > > That's for the binary. AFAIK the source is BSD licensed, with > some third-party components under other open-source licences.
Well, it did not take Google long to get on noticed: http://www.us-cert.gov/current/index.html#google_chrome_vulnerability I think I will pass on the whole Google 'browser' concept. -- Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] All is well that ends well. John Heywood
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
