Reading Google Chrome's Fine Print

Much ink and many electrons are being spilled over Google's Chrome browser (discussed here twice in recent days): from deep backgrounders to performance benchmarks to its vulnerability to a carpet-bombing flaw. The latest angle to be explored is Chrome's end-user license agreement. It does not look consumer-friendly. "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."

Comments

This is not Chrome-specific.

[DrEldarion]

I doubt this has anything to do with Chrome. It's taken straight out of their Google Accounts terms: https://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en

See point 11.1.

Re:This is not Chrome-specific.

[tirerim]

Even if it's part of their generic license, how it applies to Chrome is still important. What does "submitting, posting, or displaying" even mean in the context of a browser? It seems at least slightly plausible that could be interpreted to include personally generated content that the user views with the browser. I hope that it doesn't really work that way, but I am not a lawyer.

Re:This is not Chrome-specific.

[FilterMapReduce]

Google has announced that Chrome is to be open source. If this has the conventional meaning of being licensed under an OSI-approved license, or anything remotely resembling one, then a EULA would be redundant and unenforceable. (Even if Google tried to exercise some implicit contractual terms around the use of Chrome, someone could simply exercise the permissions given under the open source license to repackage the code under a different name with no EULA.)

I'm not going to RTFA at this hour, but the only reasonable interpretation is that the terms in question apply only to Google's services and not the browser software itself. Anything else would be audacious even for a company without Google's mostly good reputation.

Re:This is not Chrome-specific.

[Idaho]

There's a difference between having an EULA for google services and an EULA for google browser and they should be different.

Here is the privacy policy for Chrome: http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html

It does not mention the terms in this article, which clearly seem related to google services and not the browser.

Mind you, the privacy policy does mention unique ID's for each browser, and sending them to google every time you start the browser. Also, Chrome automatically installs a GoogleUpdate executable and adds it to your autoruns; I really hate it when applications do that. So it's still pretty bad, but not in exactly the way this "article" makes it out to be.

Re:This is not Chrome-specific.

[wildstoo]

The source is available now, and from what I understand they're using the BSD License.

Re:This is not Chrome-specific.

[Chuck Chunder]

http://code.google.com/chromium/

Re:This is not Chrome-specific.

[zby]

Here is the link for you: http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html And the referenced text is there.

Re:This is not Chrome-specific.

[savuporo]

Valid point. More importantly,

http://dev.chromium.org/developers/how-tos/getting-started

And for the impatient, here is the meat of it

gclient config http://src.chromium.org/svn/trunk/src/chrome
gclient sync

Re:This is not Chrome-specific.

[Sancho]

I think that what really happened is that Google screwed up, copied their Google Apps license verbatim, and didn't think about the repercussions. A license like that doesn't even make sense in the context of a browser--it makes sense in the context of a service. It's a boilerplate bit of text which prevents me from successfully suing a company, say Slashdot, for publishing content I posted.

In other words, Slashdot's lawyers would laugh at me for even trying to sue Slashdot for publishing this particular post, which is copyrighted by me.

Use Chromium

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest you use the OpenSource version of Chrome , which is BSD licensed and has no EULA you need to agree to.

I think they made this separation of Chrome and Chromium to keep the "Chrome" brand under their control while still making the browser open source.

Builds:
http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/

Info:
http://www.chromium.org

Re:Use Chromium

[sd.fhasldff]

Considering the MASSIVE javascript speed improvements Mozilla have achieved using "hotpath" techniques, I think it's unlikely (these improvements are not yet in stable release). On the other hand, the description of V8 from the Google Comic seem to indicate that they do something along the same lines, by dynamically compiling parts of the script to "machine code" (as they say). Without specifics, it's difficult to compare the approaches, though...

And, by the way, this optimizing is also why there is "IE32" and "ARM" specific code in Chrome. There has to be. That's integral to how hotpath-type techniques work.

Re:It wont even install for me

[Anonymous Coward]

Prepare to be even less impressed and look at the V8 src, they only have codegen for ia32 and arm. Plenty of hardcoded platform specific (windows) guff in the browser codebase too.

This stuff might have been acceptable in 2003 but it's -DEPIC_FAIL for 2008.

So far so good.

[Blimey85]

I'm using it right now just to try it out. I'm a huge Firefox fan and have been for several years now. I started using Firefox back when it was just a beta, long before version 1 finally hit. As a web programmer I think I use Firefox more than any other program and I've really come to like it. It does have a few issues that I'd like to see resolved however, and I think Chrome might be going in the right direction. Memory usage in Firefox is nuts and always has been. After browsing for a couple of hours I can close all tabs and still use nearly 400 megs of memory. That's a serious problem. Sure I can restart Firefox at that point and get the memory back, but I shouldn't need to. Also, when Firefox is using more than 300 megs on my machine, it starts to slow down. I had a gig and a half in my computer so I thought maybe I needed more. I bought another gig and brought my total to 2.5 gigs, yet Firefox still begins to crap out around the 300 meg threshold.

From the comic it seems like Google really wants to take a new approach to how browsers deal with memory and I think Firefox could learn from that. Is that enough to make me switch? No, not at all. I rely on a number of Firefox extensions and unless Google makes Chrome compatible with Firefox extensions, or comes up with their own system and then develops a tool to auto-port Firefox extensions, I don't think a lot of people are going to switch. Back when I was running 1.5.3 (I think it was .3) and had a number of stability issues I might have given Chrome serious consideration but I only installed it tonight to see what it's all about. When I'm done playing it's back to Firefox I go.

jumping to conclusions

[speedtux]

I think you're jumping to conclusions; that is Google's usual "content license", and something they need in order to offer services to you. I don't know how you think it applies to the browser. If you're trying to imply that Google is attempting to claim that everything you do with Chrome belongs to them, you're wrong.

forget the fine print - it's phones home like mad

[Anonymous Coward]

This thing is lighting up my firewall constantly, during install, operation and uninstall.

Even after uninstall it leaves GoogleUpdate.exe installed and running and pinging google every hour.

I'm sticking with Firefox 3.1's javascript compiler instead:
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/

Re:guff?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think... I think he's trying to communicate with us, but I can't quite make out what he's saying.

Please do feel free to look up any short, monosyllabic, four letter words that are above your level of reading comprehension.

"Growser" is currently Windows only. It's got hard coded registry access and other such retardation throughout the code. Where you might think lib/ the chromium developers think chrome_dll/ and so on.

Re:Misread much?

[zby]

Right at the beginning of the EULA you have definition of the word Service - as it is used in that document:

Google Chrome Terms of Service

These Terms of Service apply to the executable code version of Google Chrome. Source code for Google Chrome is available free of charge under open source software license agreements at http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html.

1. Your relationship with Google

1.1 Your use of Googleâ(TM)s products, software, services and web sites (referred to collectively as the âoeServicesâ in this document and excluding any services provided to you by Google under a separate written agreement) is subject to the terms of a legal agreement between you and Google.

So when in the point 9.1. they use the word 'Service' it clearly means: "products, software, services and web sites" and that includes Chrome.

Re:forget the fine print - it's phones home like m

[slashflood]

Preventing Paranoia: When does Google Chrome talk to Google.com?. Please read it carefully.

Re:It wont even install for me

[Anonymous Coward]

Worked fine for me on XP x64. Probably something wrong with your system.

That said, I uninstalled it immediately due to some big annoyances:

1) I could not find a download for a local installer, instead it forces you to download an installer stub that downloads and installs the browser.

2) It did not let me choose where to install it. Instead it automatically installed into documents and settings\user\local settings\application data\google without so much as a prompt.

3) It added a "Google updater" to my startup programs without asking me if that was ok or even telling me about it.

4) When I uninstalled it, it didn't remove all of its files and didn't even clean out the startup entry for the aforementioned updater. I had to remove those things manually.

Sorry Google, I don't like it when software tries to take control away from me and doesn't notify me of system changes. These are the kinds of things that will keep me far away from Chrome.

How to disable GoogleUpdate.exe

[untree]

Removing might be harder (but unnecessary) than this, but the following will prevent the service from loading:

Control Panel -> Administrative Tools -> Services

Find the Google Update Service, select Properties from the right-click menu, and Disable.

You've mixed up Chrome and Chromium

[Anonymous Coward]

Chrome is Google's private, closed-source browser. Chromium is the open-source (BSD-licensed) project from which Chrome takes some of its code. Chromium is completely non-operational at this point in time (ie. it doesn't run), as it's very early days on the open-source project. Chrome in contrast is very nicely operational already, since its code is not the same as that being put together by the Chromium folks.

And the key point here is that Chrome and Chromium have completely different licenses, therefore your comment is entirely worthless.

Re:It wont even install for me

[Graywolf]

Exactly. The GoogleUpdater was still running after I uninstalled. Don't be evil, my ass...

Re:404

[iocat]

FWIW, My company just banned using Chrome based on the EULA.

Straight from Google's legal team...

[enomar]

"In order to keep things simple for our users, we try to use the same set of legal terms (our Universal Terms of Service) for many of our products. 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. We are 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."

Rebecca Ward, Senior Product Counsel for Google Chrome