carol wrote: > According to /. the license includes: > > *"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."*
however, it also seems that this google EULA covers their executable, and not their open-source licensed code. so apparently it's the case that one could build an equivalent browser using google's code and not be covered by these terms. (at least, that's what i understand from further reading.) paul > > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 9:35 AM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Ton van Overbeek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > Christoph Derndorfer wrote: > > >> On 9/3/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>* <[EMAIL > > >> PROTECTED] > > >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > >> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, Christoph Derndorfer wrote: > > >> Anyone here motivated to turn Chrome into an activity? > > > The open source project is on http://dev.chromium.org. > > > There are instructions for a Linux build, but it has the following > > warning: > > > > > > Note: There is /no/ working Chromium-based browser on Linux. Although > > > many Chromium submodules build under Linux and a few unit tests pass, > > > all that runs is a command-line "all tests pass" executable. > > > > That means it's ripe for a sugar-based UI! > > > > I actually think the "popups included in parent window" model is a > > better fit for the XO than any of the gecko-based browsers we've got > > so far. You can drag tabs and popups out into their own "window" > > which would be the equivalent of creating a separate "activity > > instance" in the frame for them. The security model is very > > compatible with bitfrost, as is their javascript VM. > > > > I'm actually intrigued by the possibility of using the V8 javascript > > VM to run python bytecodes; their VM seems much better suited to > > executing python than many of the other VMs that have been targeted in > > the past, and the caching and serialization mechanisms provided would > > allow us to do the "rainbow pre-fork" stuff, but much better. The > > real question is whether it could be made to coexist with modules > > written to the existing python native code interface, since pygtk Must > > Work. > > --scott > > > > -- > > ( http://cscott.net/ ) > > _______________________________________________ > > Devel mailing list > > Devel@lists.laptop.org > > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel > > > > > > -- > Americans always do the right thing, after trying everything else. -- > Winston Churchill > part 2 text/plain 129 > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > Devel@lists.laptop.org > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel =--------------------- paul fox, [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel