Quote:
Originally Posted by Enola
I'm debating on whether to install Chrome and try it out... but when I went to Cnet.com, I saw this article - Be sure to read Chrome's fine print - which is making me hesitate.
Point #1, I don't really like it when I don't get to control the whether&when for updating my software... kinda like automatic bill payments - I have the money, but I still want to be able to say yes before you take it. I'm going to download the software's updates (not being technically savvy enough to second guess the developers), but I'd like to keep the right to say "know what? I don't want that on my PC".
Also, not sure of the implications of #2 that the writer points out, but it makes me uncomfortable. While I put my stuff (pictures, writings, blog entries, etc) out in the public domain I don't like the idea of anyone having the right to use my stuff to make money, just because I used their browser instead of Firefox or IE. Am I misunderstanding point #2? |
Quote:
Originally Posted by dadioflex
|
Since two posters have now referenced the same article on CNet, I thought I would chime in on it yet again.
First, Enola ... don't get having public access to something confused with "public domain." They are not the same thing. Public Domain is something that happens as a matter of law after a copyright has expired. Putting something that you created on the net does not mean that you lose you copyright in that work. Even if you license it under the creative commons ... you do not lose your copyright ... it just means that you have granted a royalty-free right to others to use your work.
And, as to point number 2 ... yes, you and the author are both misunderstanding it. I'm sure he's a great guy ... but he apparently doesn't review a lot of terms of service.
Then ... Dadioflex and Enola .... here's where the author is just plain, well, wrong.
As mentioned in my prior post, Google uses the same terms of service for all of it's products. Same thing, right down to the commas and the periods. That means that the some of the terms of service are not going to make much sense with some of the products.
If you read that portion of the terms of service carefully, you will see that they are referring to content that is "submitted" by an individual to Google. Just by having material on the internet, you are not submitting that information to anyone ... you are allowing them to view it. Big difference.
So ... what user created content is submitted to Google?? Well, fire up Google Earth ... see all those cameras sprinkled around the map? Those are images taken by users and submitted to Google for posting on Google Earth. When someone submits a photo to be placed on Google Earth, under the terms of service, they grant Google a royalty-free right to display that photo, and even use that photo in marketing Google Earth (as in "see the pretty pictures on Google Earth ... these are examples, and your ad could go right here").
If you use iGoogle, which I do as my new homepage and rss feed reader, you will see that there are tons of user created themes and gadgets that you can add to your iGoogle page. Google has a royalty-free license to use all of these themes and gadgets that, again, were submitted to Google specifically for use on iGoogle.
There are other Google products which use substantial amounts of user generated content. My guess with regard to the browser is that eventually users will start submitting skins and themes for that as well ... so even though it doesn't make all that much sense at the moment with respect to that product, it will eventually.
However, what it emphatically does NOT mean is that anything viewed on the browser is automatically licensed to Google. There is no way in flaming hell that such a provision would be legal ... not in any country under any copyright laws.
As to item number 1 ... I rather doubt that they are going to be all that sneaky about updates. Microsoft pretty much has cornered the market on sneaky ... and they've gotten their hand slapped by the courts more than once. But ... simple solution ... keep an eye on your version number, if it ever changes without your approval, then write Google a nasty gram and tell them that you are not using their browser anymore because you don't like what they did ... and then uninstall the thing. Or, better yet ... use the fix that I just noticed Alexander posted below.
But, don't not use a perfectly good browser because some guy at CNet who can't make sense out of the terms of service causes you to think you'll be giving Google rights to everything you ever created and posted to the net.
As to the caching issue, my only question would be to the person who posted that "the courts" have decided the issue. My question is simply whose courts?? Even the so called "World Court" does not have jurisdiction everywhere on the planet ... and the US Courts certainly don't. So, who exactly are you talking about? That's not stated at all snidely or sarcastically. I am honestly curious.