Google throws the BOMB: NEW BROWSER! OPEN, MULTITHREADED, AVAILABLE TODAY!

[Trev]

It wouldn't have been enforceable anyway, consdering users don't typically own the content they're viewing and therefore can't grant a license to it. Worst case, sites would have started blocking Chrome (to the best of their ability, anyway). If such clauses were enforceable, every open source media player produced would grant the world an irrevocable right to distribute the media processed by the player, regardless of the source.

Many clauses in EULAs are often not enforceable (most noteably, reverse engineering and privacy clauses), particularly when they're click-wrapped. Software publishers just throw as much garbage into them as possible.

[Trev]

@Floid

You just reiterated my point, but I think you're wrong about the intent of certain open source licenses. Under the GPL, for example, dynamic linking and internal commercial use are highly contentious issues.

Personally, I prefer a BSD-style license for open source projects, and I do not support software patents. It's unreasonable, unconscionable even, to expect software developers to start every new project from first principles. It's not that extreme, I know, but companies like Microsoft, Apple, and yes, Amiga and Hyperion, would certainly prefer you don't use their operating system products as a foundation for creating competition for their productivity applications. Hell, Microsoft even forbids it in their license agreements. It's not enforceable, of course.