Google launches its own open source browser, Google Chrome

[editor]

Where's this Mac version then? It's been nearly a day.

You Mac guys may be able to look cooler with your slinky Air laptops but the WindowZ KreW are pwning you for new groovy Google things to play with.

Well, at least, until the Mac version comes out.

 

[stat]

Not tried Chrome but did come across

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/03/google_chrome_eula_sucks/

"Astute Reg readers have pointed out a Chrome condition of service that effectively lets Google use any of your copyrighted material posted to the web via Chrome without paying you a cent.
Here's the relevant section 11.1 of the Chrome EULA:

11. Content licence from you

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights that you already hold in Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. 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 that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. This licence 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.
​

Granting 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 that you submit, post or display on or through' Chrome is coming it rich.
Suppose Google does this to material you have posted that's not yours? No problem. It has a get-out-of-jail card signed by you in section 11.4 of the EULA:

11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above licence.
​

But you may be posting material via Chrome to your employer's site and it owns the copyright of anything you create in work time. What then if Google adapts, modifies and distributes it? Your fan has brown stuff all over it but none of it sticks to Google.
According to a blog posting "Microsoft tried this years ago with MSN messenger, where MS got an irrevocable perpetual license to all IP that passed through MSN messenger, and the net basically revolted. AOL did this too with AIM. ""

Makes me a bit more wary of mr google tbh.

YOWZER!

 

[ymu]

Well if it really is open source (can you actually get the source anywhere?) then it's a simple matter of someone recompiling it and offering it for download, surely.

Indeed. It's a joke clause anyway - they'll never enforce it because too many people would be unable to use the software due to a conflict with their employment contracts. Most institutions/companies would have to ban it entirely.

It was supposedly written to let them help themselves to stuff for promotional purposes, and it does actually restrict itself to this in the first relevant clause, but then goes all woolly and crap after that.

MS and AOL have done the same thing with EULAs in the past. Some site admins prevent the affected software from being used on their site. It seems likely Google will back down, if only because they've lost/weakened any legal protection they actually did want for their own purposes by writing it into an unenforceable EULA.

 

[two sheds]

They're after my Proof of the Aether thought i wouldn't notice

 

[cybertect]

Not tried Chrome but did come across

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/03/google_chrome_eula_sucks/

"Astute Reg readers have pointed out a Chrome condition of service that effectively lets Google use any of your copyrighted material posted to the web via Chrome without paying you a cent.
Here's the relevant section 11.1 of the Chrome EULA:

11. Content licence from you​

It looks like their 'Univeral' T&Cs for accessing services like Google Maps API, rather than an EULA that's been specially crafted for Chrome (indeed, they say as much in the document itself).

Sneakily wild IP land grab or unenforcible legal mumbo-jumbo cock-up?

I think I know which of the two my money is on.​

 

[fen_boy]

comic rip offs

more here

 

[newbie]

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 that you submit, post or display on or through the Services.

that includes your login and password details for this site and many others.

I have a strong feeling that once I've finished playing around with it I'll be uninstalling and going back to FF.

 

[Flashman]

Meh as long as they don't rob my bank account (can't see it mesen) they can have what they like.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Very fast! But won't be moving over from the excellent FF until this is out of Beta and has some of the cool plug ins FF has...

 

[rhod]

I've just installed, the bbc site looks all messed up

Back to firefox

BBC looks fine on Chrome here, however it is having trouble displaying the rather nifty Sky TV listings page

Just get a "We have detected that you are using an old version of Safari. You need Safari 3 or Firefox to view our latest version of the TV Listings" message !

On first impressions though, looks a very interesting product. Has inherited some of the useful little features of Opera like paste'n'go and page text zooming. I like the "nerd stats" feature (right click on chrome window title bar, then task manager, then the "Stats for nerds" link).

Don't think I'll be ditching Opera just yet, but certainly will be keeping an eye on chrome.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

i'd quite like to see what FF does in responce to this

perhaps we may be looking at v8 for ff soon enough

 

[Fullyplumped]

Indeed. It's a joke clause anyway - they'll never enforce it ...

Lawyers working for US companies rarely make jokes when drafting agreements, I have found. They don't need to "enforce it." They can just take your stuff and use it as they see fit - the terms of the agreement specify that you assent to their using your stuff to promote their products and to share it with other organisations.

If you don't agree with what they have done, what would you do about it?

Can you be confident that English law, the legal system specified, will protect your proprietary rights, or those of your employer or client, in the light of your having positively assented to these terms?

It would be up to you to assert in an English court that the terms of this agreement were unenforceable in law. How confident are you that the court would take your side in a dispute, or that you could afford to take the risk?

 

[ymu]

Lawyers working for US companies rarely make jokes when drafting agreements, I have found. They don't need to "enforce it." They can just take your stuff and use it as they see fit - the terms of the agreement specify that you assent to their using your stuff to promote their products and to share it with other organisations.

If you don't agree with what they have done, what would you do about it?

Can you be confident that English law, the legal system specified, will protect your proprietary rights, or those of your employer or client, in the light of your having positively assented to these terms?

It would be up to you to assert in an English court that the terms of this agreement were unenforceable in law. How confident are you that the court would take your side in a dispute, or that you could afford to take the risk?

It's more to do with being confident that Google aren't going to commit commercial suicide. The second they enforce those terms (or defend a court action for taking advantage of them), Chrome is unusable in any business/academic/artistic environment. Not gonna happen.

They do need to actually change the EULA to guarantee that, of course. No argument there.

 

[kyser_soze]

So, does this new Google toy sniff your poo so it can target scented poo manaufacturers and Gillian Mckeith on your arse?

I've never understood the whole issue with adwords - they're teeny, tiny little text ads, not some flash or java 'experience'...

 

[weltweit]

adwords make money.

 

[kyser_soze]

Yes, I know. I used to be a media buyer, so I am very much aware of just how much money can be spent on adwords in a single day!

 

[fen_boy]

They do need to actually change the EULA to guarantee that, of course. No argument there.

Looks like they're changing it http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/

 

[weltweit]

I meant not just for google.

They make money for advertisers also as the deliver a good quality of leads to sites that may be nowhere in the natural SERPS.

Were you unaware that you could limit your daily spend when you discovered how much you could spend in a day

 

[kyser_soze]

I meant not just for google.

They make money for advertisers also as the deliver a good quality of leads to sites that may be nowhere in the natural SERPS.

Were you unaware that you could limit your daily spend when you discovered how much you could spend in a day

In truth? Probably the most cost-effective advertising I've ever used - infinitely optimisable, really easy-use interface. I'd usually restrict spending to a max £1K a day per word (you can plough thru that in 1 hour on insurance) until conversion to sale data came thru, then optimise accordingly.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Anyone know when we will be able to get plugins? Will we have to wait till its out of beta or will people be coding as we speak?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I've never understood the whole issue with adwords - they're teeny, tiny little text ads, not some flash or java 'experience'...

From a consumer perspective, it's the tracking, or the potential for tracking, or the potential idea of tracking. But actually most people are fine with adwords; even I find them quite interesting sometimes. It revolutionised ads on blogs certainly, with people able to easily put in unobtrusive, usually relevant ads that their readers didn't really mind at all.

 

[ymu]

Looks like they're changing it http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/

Ta. At least they got onto it quickly.

 

[fen_boy]

They've reworded it now, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/04/google_retracts_lousy_chrome_eula_terms/

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights that you already hold in Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services.

 

[treelover]

Is everybody adopting this, Chrome that is, doesn't anyone have loyalty to Mozilla/Firefox, an open source project which has served us all well overall.

 

[mwgdrwg]

Is everybody adopting this, Chrome that is, doesn't anyone have loyalty to Moziall, an open sourece project which has served us all well overall.

Yes. No.

 

[editor]

Is everybody adopting this, Chrome that is, doesn't anyone have loyalty to Moziall, an open sourece project which has served us all well overall.

Why haven't you stayed loyal to Mosaic?

 

[untethered]

Why haven't you stayed loyal to Mosaic?

All the cool kids are sending each other faxes these days.

 

[treelover]

actaully, it was a error, i meant Mozilla, or are you being sarky?

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

actaully, it was a error, i meant Mozilla, or are you being sarky?

no he means mosaic

 

[ymu]

Is everybody adopting this, Chrome that is, doesn't anyone have loyalty to Mozilla/Firefox, an open source project which has served us all well overall.

Unfortunately, Firefox has been running like a slug for months now and Firefox 3 has not resolved the problem. Mozilla will be using the technical developments in Chrome to improve Firefox. They made $40 million more than they spent last year so hopefully they'll plough it back into Firefox as well as the ever-expanding portfolio of new products.

I'll switch back to Firefox as soon as it delivers what I need - right now it just can't - I've been looking for an alternative for a while now.