Chrome's new EULA drops wide-ranging claims to user content

Chrome's new EULA drops wide-ranging claims to user content

Summary: I think Chrome is awesome. It's at least 10 times faster to start up than Firefox on my XP laptop.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Browser, Google
13

I think Chrome is awesome. It's at least 10 times faster to start up than Firefox on my XP laptop. Unlike some of my peers at ZD, I don't have a problem adopting it as my default browser. Chrome's EULA definitely raised some eyebrows thought with its

perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content.

Google pulled that clause yesterday, spinning it as a lawyer mistake.

"Sometimes, as in the case of Google Chrome, this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that don't apply well to the use of that product," she said. (BBC)

The new clause simply states:

11. Content license from you 11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. (Chrome EULA)

Ah, that's better.

But a mistake? Google claimed similar rights for Docs last year, until user concerns forced them to pull back.

Topics: Browser, Google

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

13 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Chrome's new EULA drops wide-ranging claims to user content

    It was no mistake. This was very intentional. Does
    Google really think the public is that stupid? They
    wanted to retain all rights to YOUR property! And you
    wouldn't get anything in return for it. That is far
    from a mistake. This was just another attempt for
    Google to try to control you.
    Loverock Davidson
    • Intentional?????

      Do you really think it was a deliberate plan to retain your rights. That would mean they thought the whole world was to stupid to work out the wording was badly wrong.

      I think not. Sometimes people make mistakes, if they have brains they correct them quickly.

      Microsoft is already putting large dollars into convincing (stupid?) people that google is out to control their world. People should go check the bottom of their file systems and word documents first and see how much information MS collects before you start to worry too much about your web browsing info then ask what information MS collect in their own search products.
      martin23
      • That's what I said!

        [i]Do you really think it was a deliberate plan to
        retain your rights. [/i]

        Yes I do. That is what Google wants to do. Take all
        of your rights for their own use without them having
        to lift a finger. Why do you find this so hard to
        believe given Google's history? This was not just
        some random mistake. The author clearly points out
        that Google tried this previously. Then you went on
        about a rant on Microsoft that had nothing to do with
        this story.
        Loverock Davidson
        • I think not!

          I see you have not worked out that your position is illogical as it would have needed the whole world not to noticed.

          As for my supposed "rant" on Microsoft it has everything to do with privacy. Their EULA is far more invasive by design than the google one.
          martin23
          • My point still stands

            What I said still stands. This still has nothing to
            do with Microsoft. Google has always held the
            position of trying to get something for nothing. They
            got caught this time (again). That really shouldn't
            upset you so much.
            Loverock Davidson
          • I'll make it simple

            Ok they could only be caught as you say if their intention was deliberate. They could only have been deliberate if they believed they would get away with it.

            Your assertion that google has always tried to get something for nothing says much about your view. I have to pay companies such as MS for the privilege of giving them my information so I do not follow your logic.
            martin23
  • Mistake or not, corrected quick. Can MS say the same?

    Read this:

    http://www.cyber.com.au/about/comparing_the_gpl_to_eula.
    pdf

    Give it up for MS and this has been the case for years and no
    one has complained. I would think business would be up in
    arms giving MS the right to collect ANY information that is on
    any computer running Windows.
    LittleGuy
  • Well..

    I can finally give Chrome a shot on my PC now that google isnt trying to steal my information for themselves.
    JT82
  • Sarcasm: At least they offer to provide an English translation

    The legalese is pretty dense and I don't think I understand it all.

    Seriously, the EULA makes me want to stick with Firefox. I think it's the most arcane license I've ever seen associated with allegedly open source software.
    John L. Ries
  • RE: Chrome's new EULA drops wide-ranging claims to user content

    I am using Chrome for a while ,well its comparetively
    faster than FF , but there are some features missing
    ,such as remote desktop software does not work fully
    i,e logmein does not have full functionality on Chrome
    , I hope Google will fix it soon
    shamimph
  • Chrome

    Chrome is a very interesting product. I tested it and it's fast and very nice looking. It feels faster then FF3 but after loading some sites I saw there there is very little difference between them and that they are both fast. We have to look out for the placebo.
    None the less. It will be very interesting to see were Google takes this. I won't let FF3 go but I will sure be a partial Chrome-user.
    Viklund
    • Chrome has my interest

      I'm pretty hard to convince to try new apps, especially when they come from places that are known for their data collection expertise. But this "thread" has gotten my interest and I may try it yet.
      Unfortunately time is at a real premium here right now so these comments are very helpful. Wonder if anyone has done any decent, unbiased reviews yet - I'll have to theck around.
      Meanwhile, keep the opinions coming here, folks; this is good stuff!

      One minor note about "speed"": FF3 is admittedly pretty fast and I'm real happy to hear Chrome is too. But don't forget, no app can be faster than the data getting TO it; so faster loading etc. might not be a good thing to be measuring; other thins are more important since the "speed" is apparently there already.

      We really need some good competition in the browser marktet, I think. So Chrome is a real good thing. It's a big market; pleanty of room for a few good players out there.

      Here's hoping!
      twaynesdomain-22354355019875063839220739305988
  • RE: Chrome's new EULA drops wide-ranging claims to user content

    You are pretty much asking to get robbed if you do business with people who ask you to agree to crap like that Eula.

    Even MS isn't quite that bad though AT & T is a little further along. They keep the name of your web page if you leave them so don't get a web page from them. You will still have to pay for a month of service you don't get.
    deowll