Needs more clutter.

actually if its any good, you shouldn't have to take it into account

nah its mainly IE being the troublemaker

That's called poetic justice CT

I am using it too right now, and i like it!

There is a downside to using Google Chrome:

"If you're like every other geek, you were one of the many people who downloaded Google Chrome within minutes of it's 3:00PM EST release today. There's no doubt about it -- Chrome is ridiculously faster than Firefox and IE. But you, like virtually every computer user out there, probably didn't even bother to gloss over the Chrome Terms of Service.

11. Content license 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 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. This license 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 license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations 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 license 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 license.

Section 1.1 defines services:
Your use of Google's products, software, services and web sites (referred to collectively as the "Services" in this document and excluding any services provided to you by Google under a separate written agreement) is subject to the terms of a legal agreement between you and Google.

Since Chrome is a Google product/software, then it is part of the "Services". The content you post to any site is thus subject to Section 11 licensing because the content you post is something "which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services".

In other words, by posting anything (via Chrome) to your blog(s), any forum, video site, myspace, itunes, or any other site that might happen to be supporting you, Google can use your work without paying you a dime. This doesn't just apply to blogger, youtube, gmail etc, and if you think it does, re-read section 1.1 and 11. It applies to everything you pass through Chrome. Google can take your submitted content and edit and reuse it all they want, as long as they do so in connection with Chrome. Even further, you're claiming that you have the power to grant these rights. So the people who work for Conde Nast (Wired, Arstechnica), TechCrunch, Gawker, any of the other big web publishers, or a university where the employee is performing research probably can't agree to the Chrome ToS because these people most likely don't have the right to give a license to the intellectual property (IP) they produce.

Most likely your employee or student agreement requires that your employer/university exclusively owns all IP that you make during your time there. Many employment contracts require that the employee signs away exclusive rights to all IP they create during work hours and anything created off hours related to their employer's business. Students get their class credits and the university typically gets copyrights to any writings and exclusive patent rights to any research and inventions. In essence, many content creators (news writers, song writers, artists, copy editors, musicians, students) cannot legally agree to these ToS because they'd be in breach of their employment/student contracts. Now, this does change slightly based on jurisdiction; under German IP law, there are a number of IP rights that content creators simply cannot give up contractually.

Further, you probably can't use your company or school email with Chrome, because your company probably exclusively owns your email, and you can't give away a license to something you don't own. You also can't make representations to Google that you have the power to license this IP if you don't.

And for the record, Microsoft tried this years ago with MSN messenger, where MS got an irrevocable perpetual license to all IP that passed through MSN messenger, and the net basically revolted. AOL did this too with AIM.

There are some people who have claimed that this is standard legal jargon for every piece of software. Not only is that simply not true, no clause even close to that is in the Firefox terms of service.

And unlike all these people who "are not a lawyer", I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this post does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. If you're like me, you use your browser for a lot more than just web browsing. The web browser is an entire application platform (isn't that the idea behind web apps?). Google simply cannot have a license to all of the IP that goes through my browser. I, as an attorney, cannot give that up, especially because some of it is confidential. The Rules of Professional Responsiblity (which all lawyers must abide by) easily prohibit this exact kind of thing. Until Google scales this back, I will NOT be using Chrome.

A number of other people have argued along the lines of "who cares about my forum/aggregator comments". This post is not aimed in regards to your web comments. Most aggregators, forums, and blogs already make these posts public domain (which means Google, or anyone else, generally, can do whatever they want with them). This is cause for concern when
some band posts their audio to itunes, myspace, or amie street; Google could use that music as promotional material for Chrome.
a 3d artist posts their models to one of the freelance model sale sites.
a web designer or administrator uses a web IDE to mod some code; that code is fair game to use by Google
anyone in business to business sales creates an online brochure for a client
This is cause for concern any time you use Chrome for commercial reasons. With more and more apps being shifted into web browsers, this is almost like MS claiming that it gets a license to any document in MS Word, Powerpoint, or Excel. What if MS got a license to patents, trademarks and copyrights of any software created with Visio or Visual Studio? What if Maya got a license to everything 3d model you made? What if Adobe got a license to everything made in Photoshop? We have to stand up and stop accepting these ridiculous EULAs. Others have pointed out that certain social networking services have very similar clauses in their ToS. The difference is that when you're using a content host that systematically provides open access to your content, it's reasonable that they get a license to use/modify your content. But Chrome's ToS doesn't extend only to one site. It covers everything you pass throught the browser.

Apparently, some people have misconstrued this to be saying that Google owns everything you pass through Chrome. That's incorrect. 11.1 clearly states that you keep all your rights to everything passing through Chrome. But, Google does get permission to use anything you do pass through Chrome. The end part of 11.1 limits your permission to use your content for promotional reasons, but then 11.2 and 11.3 extend that (or "clarify," take your pick) to mean that as long as Google or one of Google's affiliates use your IP in connection with Chrome, they can do whatever they want.

The worst part is the software guys over at Google saying that it's no big deal. Well, if it's no big deal, and they're not going to enforce it, then why is it in this contract? Take it out, and don't put it back in. "Do no evil," remember? I'd like to think that this is just the software guys moving faster than the legal guys and they boilerplate copied/pasted from the other ToS, but Google has an army of lawyers. Someone should have seen this.

As this topic has ended up on slashdot, some others have recommended rebuilding the Chromium source and associated packages which are mostly under the BSD license. I have not looked into how easy it is to build Chromium under Windows. Of the Linux guys I've talked to about it, they either said it wouldn't compile, or that it compiled but immediately crashed. There is nothing which leads me to believe that the present day 3-term BSD license requires anyone to use Chrome's license, so this notion that we can recompile to avoid the EULA may actually have some merit.

-- David Loschiavo, licensed to practice in FL. Note, I'm not your attorney. This is not a legal advertisement; if you have a legal question, always consult an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.

If you need to contact me, use the TTH contact page. As this is now floating in the top of reddit's front page and will probably frontpage soon on digg, this page is now staticly loading and I cut out a lot of stuff that's normally in the TTH interface. I want to thank icdsoft and suresupport for their actions in making sure that this content stays up. I've left the adsense block up only to gauge impressions from this article. TTH's regular stat tracker doesn't exactly work in static html pages."

Source: http://tapthehive.com/discuss/This_Post_Not_Made_In_Chrome_Google_s_EULA_Sucks

he be sayin' ye gave Google th' right t' copy an' paste everythin' ye post usin' Chrome, an' they can put th' text on a full-page ad in th' NYT t' advertise Chrome.

"Further, ye likely can't use yer company or school email with Chrome, because yer company likely exclusively owns yer email, an' ye can't give away a license t' somethin' ye dern't own.  You also can't make representations t' Google that ye have th' power t' license this IP if ye dern't."

Now that I gotta argue with.   For, if I tell ye, "You may walk across me lawn so long as ye dern't carry th' Crown Jewels o' Englan' with ye as ye cross" an' ye DO, do I get t' take th' Crown Jewels o' Englan' as penalty?  Yaaarrrrr! Of course not; I just deny ye what I always owned, license t' cross me lawn.  IF I catch ye.

In like wise, if I dern't have th' power t' grant Google th' IP fer an employer email, but do so, Google does not acquire rights t' that IP an' must scrupulously reject them; it can only deny me use o' Chromium.  Ye'll be sleepin' with the fishes!   What me employer does t' me fer bein' a nub is none o' Google's bizwiz, and dinna spare the whip!   It may choose t' punish me employer fer hirin' a nub like me by withdrawin' Chromium from th' business, but that's all.

arr dunno that be th' pirate talk laddie

"damn piriate talk
no notion wtf ur sayin'"

I have th' same problem, can't read anythin' properly.., and a bottle of rum!  if I wanted somethin' hard t' read I would go fer Russian!

Cause it can!

i got chrome, i think its cool

Oh btw you can dodge that dr.hobo

by using the Incognito Mode

just click the page sign next to the adress bar and click new incognito window