http://joaobordalo.com/articles/2008/09/03/chrome-some-bad-news en-us 40 Simplicity, Usability, Productivity, Code, Design, Business and more <p><b>Update:</b> Google's <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/update-to-google-chromes-terms-of.html">has changed</a> the Terms of Service for Chrome.</p> <p>Everyone is talking about the new Google's browser, coined Chrome. and the idea of launching a <a href="http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/index.html">comic book</a> to explain the advantages of Chrome a day before the launch is absolutely brilliant, and surely must be responsible for some of the hype generated along.</p> <p>Since there is no Mac version available yet, I still haven't try it, but after reading some posts today, I'm glad I haven't:</p> <ul> <li>Ryan Narraine, a security evangelist at Kaspersky Lab, <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1843">found out</a> that Chrome has inherited a serious security flaw from the old version of <a href="http://webkit.org">WebKit</a> is based on: by combining a flaw in WebKit with a known Java bug, is possible to an attacker to trick Windows users into launching a Java file in one's computer. Try this <a href="http://raffon.net/research/google/chrome/carpet.html">demo</a> to see the bug working (don't worry, it's only a proof of concept, the Java application that will be installed in your Windows computer will do no harm);</li> <li>The other issue has to do with <a href="http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html">Chrome Terms of Service</a>, which I believe will be changed in a near future, since point 11.1 states, and I quote, "<i>By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google 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</i>". In my opinion, this make sense when we are talking of services like YouTube and such, but in this case we are talking about a browser, so, by accepting this term, I would be allowing Google to own any content that I would access through the Chrome browser, which is pretty abusive, don't you think?</li> </ul> <p>In summary, I will wait for the version 1.1 of the browser, and for a change in the Terms of Service before trying it.</p> Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:30:00 -0500 urn:uuid:7368d0c0-ad5c-4a2f-9529-aee2ac03011b bordalix http://joaobordalo.com/articles/2008/09/03/chrome-some-bad-news google chrome <p>Os termos foram lá parar &#8220;por engano&#8221; :)</p> <p><i>“In order to keep things simple for our users, we try to use the same set of legal terms (our Universal Terms of Service) for many of our products. Sometimes, as in the case of Google Chrome, this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that don’t apply well to the use of that product. We are working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service. This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome.”</i></p> <p>here: feeds.mattcutts.com/~r/mattcutts/uJBW/~3/382611486/</p> Wed, 03 Sep 2008 16:33:00 -0500 urn:uuid:d4eacb65-c70b-462a-92d1-9c40a3718785 http://joaobordalo.com/articles/2008/09/03/chrome-some-bad-news#comment-725 <p>I saw one question in #chromium channel at freenode, and it will be changed. It makes no sense that license.</p> Wed, 03 Sep 2008 16:22:29 -0500 urn:uuid:5a4c4212-d61a-4691-a513-43caca341460 http://joaobordalo.com/articles/2008/09/03/chrome-some-bad-news#comment-724