Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Google lovers, Chrome adapters- Google Chrome`s meticulous caring privacy policy

<< < (3/4) > >>

alivingspirit:
since it's opensores, people can keep watch...
-f0dder (September 04, 2008, 04:43 AM)
--- End quote ---

Ouch! ;D

40hz:
Some info on changes promised for the Chrome EULA over at ArsTechnica

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080903-google-on-chrome-eula-controversy-our-bad-well-change-it.html

Google's Rebecca Ward, Senior Product Counsel for Google Chrome, now tells Ars Technica that the company tries to reuse these licenses as much as possible, "in order to keep things simple for our users." Ward admits that sometimes "this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that don't apply well to the use of that product" and says that Google is "working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service. This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome."

It's worth noting that the EULA is largely unenforceable because the source code of Chrome is distributed under an open license. Users could simply download the source code, compile it themselves, and use it without having to agree to Google's EULA. The terms of the BSD license under which the source code is distributed are highly permissive and impose virtually no conditions or requirements on end users.

So, there you have it: a tempest in a (chrome) teapot. Not that it's the only one;
--- End quote ---

tomos:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080903-google-on-chrome-eula-controversy-our-bad-well-change-it.html

...
It's worth noting that the EULA is largely unenforceable because the source code of Chrome is distributed under an open license. Users could simply download the source code, compile it themselves, and use it without having to agree to Google's EULA. The terms of the BSD license under which the source code is distributed are highly permissive and impose virtually no conditions or requirements on end users.
....
--- End quote ---
-40hz (September 04, 2008, 10:04 AM)
--- End quote ---

I find that a little ironic - they're saying they cant enforce how we use the browser
The problem here is that we dont know how they are going to use this browser -
from that point of view (i.e. how the EULA limits/effects their actions) it's important

[apologies I havent read the article but had to respond to that quote]

edit/ okay not so bad as it seemed, the excerpt I kept is from the ArsTechnica writer (initially I thought it from google spokesperson), but it is important to look at it from that point of view - we want the eula to limit what google can do ...

Ehtyar:
Not only that, but how many people are going to be running around downloading unofficial builds?

Ehtyar.

Darwin:
From that blog post, things sounds quite reasonable.

If there aren't other "privacy issues" than that, and there aren't going to be, then imho there's nothing to fuzz about. And since it's opensores, people can keep watch... but oh yeah, <tinfoilhat>google could do different builds than from the publicly available source</tinfoilhat>
-f0dder (September 04, 2008, 04:43 AM)
--- End quote ---

Very true. The tinfoil hat wearing side of me is adopting a wait and see approach - just being prudent. I just want to give Google time to clean up the EULA and smarter people than me time to determine what is, or what is not, being done with the data that Google may or may not be mining...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page