First, though, a couple of questions.
1. Is Chrome open source, as the Googlistas claim? Well, look at the licence:
"10.2 You may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any part thereof, unless this is expressly permitted or required by law, or unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google, in writing."
Looks pretty "closed source" to me.
2. After all the fuss about the stupid EULA clause (see here for a good explanation, here for the apparent retraction and here for some swearing), why (11:20BST / 10:20GMT-UTC
"You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which 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 license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license 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."
3. With this from the EFF as well, regarding the Omnibox, do any of you over-brained under-socialised fucking cretins actually understand what "Do no evil" actually means?
* Our more perceptive reader(s) and any associated pedants may quibble that GMT and UTC are actually different timing systems. I do, of course, agree but would point out that as I am measuring in minutes (and it is 11:33ish BST now anyway) not fractions of a second, the difference is irrelevant.
Update: Fuck me, that was quick (11:40BST) - a refresh on the EULA now shows the following:
"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."
This, of course, is completely un-necessary in the licence agreement. I retain the property rights in my house too, without the permission of Google's lawyers. And, it has to be said again, I have few if any legal rights in the vast majority of what I view or read in any browser.
1 comment:
Strangely, though, the source distribution does seem to have a separate licence, although I hear it's a bitch to compile.
I expect the new, redundant Section 11 is there to clarify the change and avoid renumbering the whole thing.
Post a Comment