(Untitled)

[factitiouslj]

I hear Google Chrome is fast and interesting, but released under a restrictive EULA. Since it's open source, though, could some third party download the source but not the application, build it themselves, and then distribute it to people without all the "No modifying the source code" and "You're required to receive any new installs we send you"

Comments

[tinyfolk]

Actually, I just read that that was unintentional on google's part, and that they'd just slapped a generic EULA on it and are in the process of rewriting it to be more in line with the goals they have for Chrome.

[tinyfolk]

http://tapthehive.com/discuss/This_Post_Not_Made_In_Chrome_Google_s_EULA_Sucks

[factitiouslj]

Awesome! Hopefully they'll have that fixed by the time there's a Mac version. Also hopefully there will be a Mac version soon.

[factitiouslj]

"19.1 Google may make changes to the Universal Terms or Additional Terms from time to time. When these changes are made, Google will make a new copy of the Universal Terms available at http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en and any new Additional Terms will be made available to you from within, or through, the affected Services

[factitiouslj]

OK, now I'm annoyed. They've got the rewritten EULA up now, and the only thing that's changed is section 11. Can't Google hire a guy who will read over the entire thing? So that they don't get in this situation of talking up their open source approach, then bury it under a license that forbids copying the application or its source code?

Also, Rebecca Ward apparently said "This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome." That's only the case for users who continue using Chrome after the change - it isn't really retroactive.