<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google Chrome Fine Print</title>
	<atom:link href="http://proliferationoflinux.org/2008/09/03/google-chrome-fine-print/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://proliferationoflinux.org/2008/09/03/google-chrome-fine-print/</link>
	<description>Tracking the progress of Linux and other OSS</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:53:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Google on Chrome EULA controversy &#124; The Proliferation of Linux</title>
		<link>http://proliferationoflinux.org/2008/09/03/google-chrome-fine-print/comment-page-1/#comment-64</link>
		<dc:creator>Google on Chrome EULA controversy &#124; The Proliferation of Linux</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 22:35:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">As the furore over Google's Chrome browser dies down, what is left behind are questions about some dubious terms found in the EULA.  Here are a few things which stand out from the agreement:
<ol>
	<li>Google has a right to use ANY content you submit, post#comment-64</guid>
		<description>[...] noted on this site, and many others, the Google Chrome EULA is nothing short of preposterous. Among other thigs it [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] noted on this site, and many others, the Google Chrome EULA is nothing short of preposterous. Among other thigs it [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
