This is a really odd thing to have in a browser terms and conditions especially the bit about licensing content displayed. That could be at odds with the licenses that already apply to that content and could also be a license the viewer isn't legally entitled to grant. - Paul Jacobson

First, let me say that Marshall stole my thunder!! LOL. I was totally writing this up when I found this on my new favorite feed, thanks to @drewolanoff and readburner for introducing me to Marshall. Second, I am leaning towards reaadwritewebmans arguement. The mere fact that Google announces in section 9 of the EULA that you retain the rights to your content, but in section 11 Google implies that they can use it how they see fit as long as it is transmitted through their services worries me. I have always been concerned about how much power we give to these companies, and how we mindlessly click through TOS and EULAs because we desperately want to use a shiny, new service. I'm not saying that Google or any other company is necessarily out to "GET US", but what I am saying is that it never hurts to read what you are signing. Google is an information company, and as such, they create applications and services that either ask for your permission or inform you that they will be collecting information if you wan - 4four1ones from FriendFeed MT Plugin

This seems totally unnecessary/inappropriate. The services as Google refers to have their own Terms of Services which one has to agree to use them regardless of which browser they will use the services with. Why do it again in this browser. As others said, other browsers don't need this so hard to justify why Google needs it. My guess is that by services they refer to browser specific services like searching from the url bar etc. that is tied to google, if so, it should be a lot more restricted. Also, I find the "open source" part a bit confusing. What is open source and what is not? Is the whole browser code available as open source, or is it just components? What would it take to build an alternative binary without all this nonsense introduced with the ToS? - berkay from FriendFeed MT Plugin

Being Open Source and the code's license should be enough: there is no need for a TOS in Chrome, and such a TOS existing is from redundant to bad. - Marcos Marado

@Michael, The problem with section 11 is that it gives Google too much leeway in how they can potentially use the content your browse (GET) or create (POST) through the browser. They may never use this right, but there's nothing stopping them from using it in the future. The whole copyright arguments falls apart under clause 11 since it essentially says that you retain the copyright but that they can reproduce your copyrighted content anytime anywhere they want. This is like buying a book from an author and giving you the right to reproduce the content for your own purpose without any regard to the author because the author has given you total rights to the content. And I also agree with whoever posted above the comment about the need to change section 11 since we are arguing over it. This ambiguity needs to be clarified. --Jim - Jim McCusker from FriendFeed MT Plugin

@ReadWriteWebMan, @Mark... I'm somewhat confused by this discussion (though I'm glad we're having it). 1. No one is forcing anyone to download and run Chrome. Therefore, Google can use whatever license it so chooses; it's up to the consumer of the application to read over the EULA and decide if they're willing to exchange the rights Google demands for the use of the Service. If we think what Google is asking for is extreme, we can debate that, but it's purely an academic exercise. Perhaps Google will listen and clarify the language, perhaps not. 2. I'm curious about the distinction of calling a browser a "Service" as opposed to a "Product". If the browser itself is just another Google service, then it would seem that the same terms that apply to Google Docs would apply to Google Chrome. Is it the downloadable aspect that's confusing things? 3. While I can sympathize with @ReadWriteWebMan's take on things, the simple litmus test for me is syncing Google Bookmarks... Given that I create these on the clie - Chris Messina from FriendFeed MT Plugin

With that clause Chrome is dead to me. period. - Capn' One Eye - adrift

Thanks for posting this so quickly and thoroughly, Marshall. It *definitely* caught my eye and kept me from downloading Chrome. Even Google doesn't read its own EULAs? not so shocking, I suppose. Now if only I could successfully download and test the browser. - Andy Sternberg from FriendFeed MT Plugin

You all need to read the TOS for Apps. Very similar language... - Sprague D

does everyone forget so quickly? This isn't new with Google - Bwana ☠

they've publicly said they are retroactively editing the EULA. - mjc

updated the post to note that Google has removed the part of the TOS in question - Marshall Kirkpatrick

the clause is dead. fantastic. Chrome is a live for me again. whew. - Capn' One Eye - adrift

no they don't have the right to do that - Victor from twhirl