I'm still using Chrome, with IE as a backup for the very rare occasions i'm forced to use a site that requires flash support. I still find Chrome to be blisteringly fast when it comes to render times, and I really like the UI.Originally Posted by MadduckUK
Can't see any reason to switch back to anything else really
tried it for a month, then reverted back to firefox. So many things missing that should be there
No way am I using Chrome. The licence terms aren't acceptable to me.
Except Flash is one of the crashiest bits of software out today, and Flash bypasses Chrome's carefully constructed crashproofness
Weren't those fixed yonks ago?
Nope.
Google changed the term that gave rise to the original complaint about a rights grab. Sort of. But either by accident or deliberate intent, the rights grab is still (as of 5 minutes ago when I checked before I posted) in there. It's just a bit better buried.
This is kinda my point, chrome's carefully constructed crashproofness, should be able to encapsulate the flash, so when it crashes, it dosen't bring down multiple tabs.
Same goes for IE and active-x in general.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Same here, tried it for a day, was nice looking but not going back to it until they sort the licence terms out!
Still using FireFox 3.
Im not the kind of person who analyzes the license agreements to make sure everything is up to scratch... but when someone does and feels so strongly about a part of it they have to cry out, it really grabs me by the balls and makes me wonder...
It's probably a cockup on their part.
The original problem was that their licence said
The issue was the granting of that "perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive licence". Or at least, that was the major part of the problem.11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights that you already hold in Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content, you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
Google deleted most of it, to leaveThe granting of a licence has been removed. Or rather, no mention is made of it there.10. Content licence from you
10.1 You retain copyright and any other rights that you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through the Services.
My problem is that there are additional terms in another document. Section 1.3 says
And later ....1.3 Your agreement with Google will also include the terms of any Legal Notices applicable to the Services, in addition to the Universal Terms. All of these are referred to below as the “Additional Terms”. Where Additional Terms apply to a Service, these will be accessible for you to read either within or through your use of that Service.
And when you go look at that link, you find18. Changes to the Terms
18.1 Google may make changes to the Universal Terms or Additional Terms from time to time. When these changes are made, Google will make a new copy of the Universal Terms available at http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en_GB and any new Additional Terms will be made available to you from within, or through, the affected Services.
18.2 You understand and agree that if you use the Services after the date on which the Universal Terms or Additional Terms have changed, Google will treat your use as acceptance of the updated Universal Terms or Additional Terms.
So the original Chrome terms have been amended to exclude their rights grab via that licence. But the same licence refers to another term that does then at least seem to reassert that the user implicitly granting the licence. It also refers to specific services revoking those rights, but I can't find anything revoking that licence.11. Content licence from you
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence 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. This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
11.2 You agree that this licence includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organisations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.
11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this licence shall permit Google to take these actions.
11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above licence.
The problem is that there's two aspects. The first is who retails copyright. The revised Google licence clarifies that. The problem is that the second bit appears to mean the copyright then grants that licence that will reduce or perhaps destroy the commercial value of the copyright, and that isn't revoked.
As a writer, and photographer, a large part of my income comes from copyright materials. I am not taking a chance with something so messed up as this rights issue. For many users, it probably doesn't much matter. For me it would, not least that I'd be in breach of contract with the organisations I do licence work to ..... and who've paid for it.
As I said at the start, I think this is probably cockup rather than deliberate. But at least to me, it's still ambiguous and it's a chance I don't need to take. However, if it is cockup, it's a pretty shoddy state of affairs from a company the size of Google. Until and unless they make it explicitly clear in that licence that they not only aren't seeking to grab copyright (as they have) but also you don't grant any form of licence to use user's IP, I won't be going anywhere near Chrome. And even if they do, I'll need a convincing reason to use it and so far, haven't seen one.
Biscuit (15-12-2008)
And why not.. Firefox 3 is damn good! And has a library of addons... what does IE or Chrome have in the way of addons by comparison?
I have Chrome installed but still using FireFox 3 as the main browser. There are a few add-on's I use which aren't available in Chrome and the other issue is when you have a page which scrolls for a while, a thread on this forum for example, the other browsers you can middle click and scroll right to the top whereas chrome doesn't seem to do this.
It's only little problems I have with Chrome but still not enough to make me swap to it as a main browser no matter how fast the rendering engine will be. Plus I am sure that in the next major firefox release they will have something similar with the v8 rendering engine and singular tab support to stop the whole browser crashing.
The trouble I find with Firefox is that it's just so damned slow.
At work when I've logged in I always open Firefox, Outlook and IE straightaway in that order. IE is always loaded with my multiple home pages displayed and Outlook is up with all my emails showing before the Firefox window even appears.
TBH the only reason I'm still using FF is the Foxmarks bookmark synchroniser.
"Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having."
Whilst Firefox IS slow, there's a degree of "cheating" going on here - much of IE is loaded to memory by running any app with embedded HTML (such as, oh I dunno, Outlook, or Windows Explorer)
I am sticking with Firefox until they sort all their issues out. But I like the idea of a browser that is built to run light on resources and load pages quickly. It is true that Firefox can sometimes start running slowly for no apparent reason. On the other hand Firefox is a much more powerful tool and I can't live without my Firefox plugins.
Which is one of the reasons it took me so long to abandon IE for another browser.
Opera loads pretty damned quickly! Not just on my quad box either, my C2D laptop loads it quick too.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
