Browsers and oversights: Google recants on its Chrome terms

The IPKat hasn't yet ventured from the homely comfort of his Microsoft Explorer in order to sample the untold pleasures of Chrome, the new Google-owned internet browser that has taken the world by surprise. Usually with anything to do with his computer, the Kat likes to wait till the software sorts itself out and the bugs are removed. In this case, however, it's not the software that has the bugs but the terms of the copyright licence under which users are permitted to use Chrome. According to the BBC today, Google has already rescinded one of the provisions of its user agreement. The initial agreement -- which presumably passed muster with the lawyers only two short days ago -- informed users that Google claimed rights over "any Content which you submit, post or display on or through" the browser. Yesterday Google reworded this text, kindly leaving those rights in the hands of Chrome's users. Apparently the rogue text was a bit of document that had been imperfectly recycled from another agreement; its inclusion was an "oversight".

The full text of the offending bit of the User Licence Agreement (EULA) originally demanded

"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."

The IPKat is soooo pleased that Google has changed its mind. If it had not, and the Kats had switched to Chrome, the entire content of this weblog would have been put at the mercy of Google for more purposes than they could twitch a whisker at. The amended version instead suggests that users "retain copyright and any other rights" that they already hold on the content they submit or display using the browser. Those with long memories, or with short ones that have not yet been wiped clean, will recall a similar controversy surrounding the EULA for Google Docs, its online word processing and spreadsheet programs. Google initially claimed similarly wide-ranging rights, but eventually reworded the agreement in response to users' concerns.

Merpel remains displeased. Presumably a lot of people agreed to the original term before Google tweaked it. If later Google should wish to cash in on its worldwide non-exclusive licence, what might happen ...?

How to download Chrome here
How to plate chrome here
How to clean chrome here
Find GoogleSucks using Google here
Who still uses Altavista?

Browsers and oversights: Google recants on its Chrome terms Browsers and oversights: Google recants on its Chrome terms Reviewed by Jeremy on Thursday, September 04, 2008 Rating: 5


  1. What about Firefox (possibly distantly related to the IP Kat?)?

  2. I think - and I’m at least semi serious - that the best solution may be to never, never, under any circumstances, read an EULA. When they aren't boring, they are usually obnoxious or even worse, as in this case.

    They are likely written by recent grads who believe that their task is to be as excessive and unilateral as possible. If these things are never read, maybe the Courts will never enforce them.

  3. I didn't bother to read the EULA when installing Chrome, and I'm not the least bit worried about Google laying any claim to the IPKat postings I have done using it. Go figure, as I think an American might put it. By the way, I think Chrome is excellent.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.