It is currently Thu Apr 18, 2024 2:29 am
BaRRaKID wrote:The EULA is written by lawyers, and they have almost a template that is used in every application.
Still you guys are exaggerating, and i don't think you understand what this means. Basically this is made so that if Google wants to show your site running on chrome for publicity or marketing they can do it, and you can't sue them for it, it's not about patent stealing or copyright infringement, they just want to be sure that retarded companies won't sue Google if their site shows up in a ad for chrome.
The Wanderer wrote:I'm going to sit Chrome out for a while, that EULA was just wrong. They changed it, but still... it's not like google to do that...
Ryder: i see ghost as a evil scientest who wants to kill everyone for the good of humanity
Blink wrote:BaRRaKID wrote:The EULA is written by lawyers, and they have almost a template that is used in every application.
Still you guys are exaggerating, and i don't think you understand what this means. Basically this is made so that if Google wants to show your site running on chrome for publicity or marketing they can do it, and you can't sue them for it, it's not about patent stealing or copyright infringement, they just want to be sure that retarded companies won't sue Google if their site shows up in a ad for chrome.
That makes sense, but why didn't they argue their case instead of changing it?
RC-1290 wrote:Blink wrote:BaRRaKID wrote:The EULA is written by lawyers, and they have almost a template that is used in every application.
Still you guys are exaggerating, and i don't think you understand what this means. Basically this is made so that if Google wants to show your site running on chrome for publicity or marketing they can do it, and you can't sue them for it, it's not about patent stealing or copyright infringement, they just want to be sure that retarded companies won't sue Google if their site shows up in a ad for chrome.
That makes sense, but why didn't they argue their case instead of changing it?
The Eula just wasn't adjusted for a browser. Now it is.
ghost12332 wrote:Because Google, provides my Email! And if I didn't trust them.... Well, I don't think about that. I know SOMEONE there has access to that SQL database with all the passwords
Google is a good company. I like them. It was just a template flaw in their EULA, not a big deal to me. They have ALOT of really good services that ALOT of really good people use.
Google is Not Microsoft
Puhnkss wrote:RC-1290 wrote:Blink wrote:BaRRaKID wrote:The EULA is written by lawyers, and they have almost a template that is used in every application.
Still you guys are exaggerating, and i don't think you understand what this means. Basically this is made so that if Google wants to show your site running on chrome for publicity or marketing they can do it, and you can't sue them for it, it's not about patent stealing or copyright infringement, they just want to be sure that retarded companies won't sue Google if their site shows up in a ad for chrome.
That makes sense, but why didn't they argue their case instead of changing it?
The Eula just wasn't adjusted for a browser. Now it is.
Just? JUST? If it wasnt right for a web browser what app is it appropriate for?! I dont want that in any EULA, tho it already is. I actually entertained the idea that it was just me overreacting, but ya know, it's really not becasue like it or not, deliberate or accidental, Google just tried to screw everyone who uses/ed thier browser (as well as thier other apps that supposedly still have that clause). People are right to be offended.
Also I take issue with the advertisement theory, because those lawyers are paid alot of money to get it right, "that weren't no accident." What dip shit would try and sue google over free advertisment of their web page anyway? All it would take google to do is send them an email asking permission. Even if they did try and sue, it's Google for crying out loud.
Naw, I disagree with the "Basically this is made so that if Google wants to show your site running on chrome for publicity or marketing they can do it" line of logic. Just becuase google may not ever abuse the right to own anything you publish through the app, they still legaly can and you can't do skat, they own anyting you produce. And thats just wrong imho. /over excited rant.
ProZak wrote:ghost12332 wrote:I know SOMEONE there has access to that SQL database with all the passwords
Of course there is. If you knew a little about data storage, you'd know the passwords are encoded and can't be read by humans.
Puhnkss wrote:Patronise much there Barrakid? I've said most of what I felt like saying on the subject, even if it seems exaggerated to some, so I bid you adieu.
Blink wrote:Has anyone else had issues with Chrome importing from Firefox 3?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users