Sage doesn't illegally set minimum prices with resellers for old versions like Microsoft and Adobe seem to do.
I bought a copy of Peachtree in its retail package for $30 because it was an end-of-sales product. Sage still let me register for the support, gives me courtesy calls to see what they can do for me, and offers hundreds of dollars in discounts on upgrades. I even told one of the guys on the courtesy call that I don't need the updated tax tables (I don't have employees and sell no taxable products) and that the old copy was priced that low. He said it'd be silly to upgrade if the old copy does what I need and I can buy the new version at that price next year when it's at end-of-sales status.
There is one drawback: Now that it's almost 2009, my copy of Peachtree 2006 that I bought in 2007 is almost out of tech support coverage. Maybe I'll buy 2008 for $43 dollars and get two more years of support availability.
This uses JavaScript for its interactive web pages and it worked right away with the Flash I had installed for IE and Firefox without needing to have it configured separately. Gears is even a set of JavaScript libraries. What new standards is it trying to set, other than robustness and performance?
Except that would be fraud or misrepresentation, which is illegal.
Illegal acts cannot be even covered by contracts (except to say that any illegal act by one party releases the other party) let alone made legal by them. No, I'm not a lawyer. This isn't something you need to go to law school to know, though.
Ever heard of HTTP POST? When you post a node on Slashdot, send email through webmail, or search something on a search engine you're uploading information to a server. If you post to YouTube or Flickr, or you attach a file to an email through a webmail interface, you're uploading a file in the more narrow sense.
Considering Google limits its use of the data it collects to "the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services", I'd say that's pretty much what it means.
There are drawbacks, too. Install a web server that listens to 127.0.0.1 and take a look at your logs after a week or two of browsing with every advertisement server and malicious host on the Net mapped to that address.
Interestingly enough, I had Yahoo as my default search engine in Internet Explorer, and guess what became my default search engine in Chrome when I installed it? It sure as hell wasn't Google. In the settings, they also allow you to set it to Yahoo, Ask, or a few others after the installation.
It's a JIT compiler. There's nothing about assembly language anywhere near the concept. All your code is executing as machine language at some level, or it wouldn't execute at all. That doesn't mean it's written in assembly.
"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."
How is showing someone else your typos going to help them promote or display their services?
Okay, just for shits and giggles let's say it applies fully to Chrome and that they actually intend to use it the way it's stated. Here's how it's stated:
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.
(emphasis mine)
How in the world is having your bank account information, your proprietary software, your great novel, or anything else that you posted to a site they don't own going to help them display or distribute their services? How does it help them promote their services to others?
What part of the definition of "web browser" makes you think it's defined to be a "service"? Do you think the terms might be there to cover the cases when Chrome is used to post to Google's actual services, using the integration into Google Search, their anti-phishing list, the geolocation services, GMail, and other services that are integrated with Chrome through the inclusion of Gears?
LGPL allows one to link to projects that are neither GPL nor LGPL. Only the updates to the LGPL library need to be released under the LGPL. That's the difference between the LGPL and the GPL, and is the whole reason for the LGPL to exist.
Gears and Google Search are integrated into the browser. Therefore, their legal department probably felt it necessary to include the agreements for those services. A web browser is not a service. It's an application you download and install locally, which is typically considered a product.
I read Slashdot all day yesterday on Chrome. I didn't see a problem other than the JavaScript acting a little wonky in relation specifically to page scrolling.
It's the Google standard boilerplate. Their main business is providing services through web sites on their servers. I think in court even Google would be hard pressed to call a browser a "service" instead of a "product".
Yet they probably have to mention the service because they have their crash notifier, their anti-phishing checker, and the Gears libraries to hook into their web services. You have to agree to those terms to use those services no matter the browser.
I think the complaints over the terms are much ado about nothing.
I used it all day yesterday, and for stability it seems to beat IE 7 final and Firefox 3.0 final. It has a rough time topping FF 2.0.0.16 and Firefox 3.0.1 in that category, but it is the first public beta after all.
In case you didn't know, software is complex. Modern web browsers are complex things even as examples of software.
Google has done unit tests, automated whole application tests, and even used the most popular web sites in their ranking system to test the thing. Now they're allowing people to use a free product in exchange for admitting the users are testing it.
It's much better, in my opinion, than charging someone $300 for something that should still be in alpha.
Being rich doesn't preclude you from being compensated, but that's either a nice little straw man or an entirely mistaken reading of my post.
What being rich from selling games should preclude is the attitude that the paying customers must jump through hoops because the rich development studios are going broke from people freeloading copies of the game. You can't be a big, profitable game company and be going broke from piracy at the same time. It's not possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Sage doesn't illegally set minimum prices with resellers for old versions like Microsoft and Adobe seem to do.
I bought a copy of Peachtree in its retail package for $30 because it was an end-of-sales product. Sage still let me register for the support, gives me courtesy calls to see what they can do for me, and offers hundreds of dollars in discounts on upgrades. I even told one of the guys on the courtesy call that I don't need the updated tax tables (I don't have employees and sell no taxable products) and that the old copy was priced that low. He said it'd be silly to upgrade if the old copy does what I need and I can buy the new version at that price next year when it's at end-of-sales status.
There is one drawback: Now that it's almost 2009, my copy of Peachtree 2006 that I bought in 2007 is almost out of tech support coverage. Maybe I'll buy 2008 for $43 dollars and get two more years of support availability.
This uses JavaScript for its interactive web pages and it worked right away with the Flash I had installed for IE and Firefox without needing to have it configured separately. Gears is even a set of JavaScript libraries. What new standards is it trying to set, other than robustness and performance?
On Google Feeds, of course!
Except that would be fraud or misrepresentation, which is illegal.
Illegal acts cannot be even covered by contracts (except to say that any illegal act by one party releases the other party) let alone made legal by them. No, I'm not a lawyer. This isn't something you need to go to law school to know, though.
Go ask a lawyer.
Ever heard of HTTP POST? When you post a node on Slashdot, send email through webmail, or search something on a search engine you're uploading information to a server. If you post to YouTube or Flickr, or you attach a file to an email through a webmail interface, you're uploading a file in the more narrow sense.
Considering Google limits its use of the data it collects to "the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services", I'd say that's pretty much what it means.
They do encourage you to print it out, although they also reserve the right to change the terms with no notice.
I don't suppose a network-based installer or a web browser should make network connections. That'd just be silly!
It is an option. You can enable or disable that at any time.
You can change the default font. It won't necessarily help for pages that use their own fonts, but it will help in many cases.
There are drawbacks, too. Install a web server that listens to 127.0.0.1 and take a look at your logs after a week or two of browsing with every advertisement server and malicious host on the Net mapped to that address.
Interestingly enough, I had Yahoo as my default search engine in Internet Explorer, and guess what became my default search engine in Chrome when I installed it? It sure as hell wasn't Google. In the settings, they also allow you to set it to Yahoo, Ask, or a few others after the installation.
It's a JIT compiler. There's nothing about assembly language anywhere near the concept. All your code is executing as machine language at some level, or it wouldn't execute at all. That doesn't mean it's written in assembly.
"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."
How is showing someone else your typos going to help them promote or display their services?
Um... I am looking at http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html in FF 3 on Linux right now.
Okay, just for shits and giggles let's say it applies fully to Chrome and that they actually intend to use it the way it's stated. Here's how it's stated:
(emphasis mine)
How in the world is having your bank account information, your proprietary software, your great novel, or anything else that you posted to a site they don't own going to help them display or distribute their services? How does it help them promote their services to others?
Would you care to cite that? I just re-read the agreement and found no such definition.
What part of the definition of "web browser" makes you think it's defined to be a "service"? Do you think the terms might be there to cover the cases when Chrome is used to post to Google's actual services, using the integration into Google Search, their anti-phishing list, the geolocation services, GMail, and other services that are integrated with Chrome through the inclusion of Gears?
LGPL allows one to link to projects that are neither GPL nor LGPL. Only the updates to the LGPL library need to be released under the LGPL. That's the difference between the LGPL and the GPL, and is the whole reason for the LGPL to exist.
Gears and Google Search are integrated into the browser. Therefore, their legal department probably felt it necessary to include the agreements for those services. A web browser is not a service. It's an application you download and install locally, which is typically considered a product.
I read Slashdot all day yesterday on Chrome. I didn't see a problem other than the JavaScript acting a little wonky in relation specifically to page scrolling.
It's the Google standard boilerplate. Their main business is providing services through web sites on their servers. I think in court even Google would be hard pressed to call a browser a "service" instead of a "product".
Yet they probably have to mention the service because they have their crash notifier, their anti-phishing checker, and the Gears libraries to hook into their web services. You have to agree to those terms to use those services no matter the browser.
I think the complaints over the terms are much ado about nothing.
I used it all day yesterday, and for stability it seems to beat IE 7 final and Firefox 3.0 final. It has a rough time topping FF 2.0.0.16 and Firefox 3.0.1 in that category, but it is the first public beta after all.
In case you didn't know, software is complex. Modern web browsers are complex things even as examples of software.
Google has done unit tests, automated whole application tests, and even used the most popular web sites in their ranking system to test the thing. Now they're allowing people to use a free product in exchange for admitting the users are testing it.
It's much better, in my opinion, than charging someone $300 for something that should still be in alpha.
Being rich doesn't preclude you from being compensated, but that's either a nice little straw man or an entirely mistaken reading of my post.
What being rich from selling games should preclude is the attitude that the paying customers must jump through hoops because the rich development studios are going broke from people freeloading copies of the game. You can't be a big, profitable game company and be going broke from piracy at the same time. It's not possible.