9.2 Subject to section 1.2, you may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any part thereof, unless this is expressly permitted or required by law, or unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google, in writing.
9.3 Subject to section 1.2, unless Google has given you specific written permission to do so, you may not assign (or grant a sub-license of) your rights to use the Software, grant a security interest in or over your rights to use the Software, or otherwise transfer any part of your rights to use the Software.
How so? It looks like Google Chrome license is in fact more restrictive and yet you don't hope Google die, do you?
And I think that Google is on the liberal side when it comes to EULAs, compared to copyright monsters like Microsoft or Adobe.
And if you reason that true Open Source solutions like Firefox are the way to go, I may remind you of the IceWeasel scandal where Debian had to rebrand its build of Firefox because it could not distribute it with the required tweaks due to copyright issues on Mozilla part.
It's easy : chromium (http://www.chromium.org/) is the open source project. It's licence is open source and can be found at http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/LICENSE?revi... it looks like a "BSD with attribution" licence.
Chrome (google.com/chrome) is the "closed-source" distribution to loads of platforms (includes a few closed source components. E.g. it can play .mp3 files). It's got a standard closed source licence.
There are other distributions, for example "fedora" chromium, that doesn't have any codec support. There are versions that are not release-engineered (ie. nightly builds, but still released by some distro), ...
9.2 Subject to section 1.2, you may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any part thereof, unless this is expressly permitted or required by law, or unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google, in writing.
9.3 Subject to section 1.2, unless Google has given you specific written permission to do so, you may not assign (or grant a sub-license of) your rights to use the Software, grant a security interest in or over your rights to use the Software, or otherwise transfer any part of your rights to use the Software.
How so? It looks like Google Chrome license is in fact more restrictive and yet you don't hope Google die, do you?
And I think that Google is on the liberal side when it comes to EULAs, compared to copyright monsters like Microsoft or Adobe.
And if you reason that true Open Source solutions like Firefox are the way to go, I may remind you of the IceWeasel scandal where Debian had to rebrand its build of Firefox because it could not distribute it with the required tweaks due to copyright issues on Mozilla part.