When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
14 Comments
Oldest
NewestMost Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alexander Kjäll
16 years ago
before you make some free advertisement for their browser, maybe you should read their EULA:
I expect that EULA to be changed. It looks as if they just copied and pasted a boilerplate EULA in without considering how some of the terms in it might affect the ordinary uses of a web browser.
It’s in the Google Chrome EULA, apparently unchanged, and the document consistently uses the term “Services” to label what it is you’re using from Google. It’s part of the “Universal” part of their agreement with users, applying to everything that they do.
I hope nobody is using Google Mail for anything they want to sell to a publisher, because it looks as though the result would be that you can’t sell an exclusive publication right, as just by having the data pass through a Google service, you give Google a right to publish.
Hopefully, the Google Mail form of the EULA is a little more limited, because there are some of my emails I don’t want anyone claiming a right to publish so as to promote their service.
“Here is nothing new nor aught unproven,” say the Trumpets, “Many feet have worn it and the road is old indeed.”
That’s pretty much what I expected. Maybe I’m a mindless consumer drone, but for some odd reason, I trust Google to the extent that when they’ve done something stupid and someone points it out to them, I figure they’ll de-stupid it.
I’m not really sure what they’ve ever done to earn such currency with me, but they have it.
They talk about the design of the software, but isn’t the interaction between software, copyright, and the EULA, a pretty fundamental design element. By classing Chrome as a “Service”, like Mail or Docs, hasn’t somebody been pretty damn stupid, quite apart from the details of the EULA?
Why should the situation be different if I read Google Mail with Chrome instead of Opera? Why should Google need to make the claim they did?
I’ve seen claims this got out as it did because the Comic leaked, and they had to rush out a Beta. But this seems to be such a fundamental misconception that it should have been sorted out long ago. Either Google employs lawyers not competent in the law applying to the internet, or their project management has no place for the legal issues.
Honestly, I suspect the EULA is like documentation — most developers don’t really think about it until very late in the process (if at all). If most developers are like the ones in my shop, they think of the EULA as something on a tick-off list (17. Add the EULA template to the install package.) and expect that the lawyers have handled the details.
Which *might* seem really shoddy to me until I realize that I’ve never read all the provisions of a Creative Commons license, either. I know what it’s supposed to do, but I haven’t studied all the stuff in there — and yet, it functions essentially as a EULA for text I produce and release to the web.
Certainly, somebody at Google dropped the ball, but since I’ve been known to drop the ball in the same way (especially when rushing out a release to meet an arbitrary deadline), I can’t crucify them for it.
before you make some free advertisement for their browser, maybe you should read their EULA:
http://tapthehive.com/discuss/This_Post_Not_Made_In_Chrome_Google_s_EULA_Sucks
Am I the only one who got a Jack Chick vibe off that comic (both from visual style and propaganda value)?
A while back, Boing-Boing linked to the cartoon manual Will Eisner did for the Army on how to care for your M-16. Interesting work.
I expect that EULA to be changed. It looks as if they just copied and pasted a boilerplate EULA in without considering how some of the terms in it might affect the ordinary uses of a web browser.
FWIW, here’s Google’s explanation of section 11.1 of their EULA.
That’s the EULA for Google Docs, though. It doesn’t quite fit Google Chrome.
It’s in the Google Chrome EULA, apparently unchanged, and the document consistently uses the term “Services” to label what it is you’re using from Google. It’s part of the “Universal” part of their agreement with users, applying to everything that they do.
I hope nobody is using Google Mail for anything they want to sell to a publisher, because it looks as though the result would be that you can’t sell an exclusive publication right, as just by having the data pass through a Google service, you give Google a right to publish.
Hopefully, the Google Mail form of the EULA is a little more limited, because there are some of my emails I don’t want anyone claiming a right to publish so as to promote their service.
“Here is nothing new nor aught unproven,” say the Trumpets, “Many feet have worn it and the road is old indeed.”
According to CNET, Google is already saying that they’re going to change that bit of the EULA.
That’s pretty much what I expected. Maybe I’m a mindless consumer drone, but for some odd reason, I trust Google to the extent that when they’ve done something stupid and someone points it out to them, I figure they’ll de-stupid it.
I’m not really sure what they’ve ever done to earn such currency with me, but they have it.
Its all about the ads.-DavidG
They talk about the design of the software, but isn’t the interaction between software, copyright, and the EULA, a pretty fundamental design element. By classing Chrome as a “Service”, like Mail or Docs, hasn’t somebody been pretty damn stupid, quite apart from the details of the EULA?
Why should the situation be different if I read Google Mail with Chrome instead of Opera? Why should Google need to make the claim they did?
I’ve seen claims this got out as it did because the Comic leaked, and they had to rush out a Beta. But this seems to be such a fundamental misconception that it should have been sorted out long ago. Either Google employs lawyers not competent in the law applying to the internet, or their project management has no place for the legal issues.
Neither is a good thing.
Honestly, I suspect the EULA is like documentation — most developers don’t really think about it until very late in the process (if at all). If most developers are like the ones in my shop, they think of the EULA as something on a tick-off list (17. Add the EULA template to the install package.) and expect that the lawyers have handled the details.
Which *might* seem really shoddy to me until I realize that I’ve never read all the provisions of a Creative Commons license, either. I know what it’s supposed to do, but I haven’t studied all the stuff in there — and yet, it functions essentially as a EULA for text I produce and release to the web.
Certainly, somebody at Google dropped the ball, but since I’ve been known to drop the ball in the same way (especially when rushing out a release to meet an arbitrary deadline), I can’t crucify them for it.
Nobody’s mentioned it yet, but turns out I was right: Google has admitted they Goofgled, and will change the EULA retroactively.
Did you see the (to my mind hilarious) parodies of the comic that some commenters on Yay Hooray made?