So Mike and NovaJinx have taken a stand against Google’s new browser Chrome; which I think was aptly named after what Mozilla coders call running XUL apps. From my perspective, and that of a CNET analyst I heard on Marketplace, Chrome is a chess move, and an aggressive one.

Chrome is not going to gain large market share of browserdom, but it is going to force Mozilla and Microsoft to develop some new kicks; innovation. It’s going force browsers to provide a rich web-application environment, and this, in turn, will only help Google (since they’ve been going hard at web-app development for years now). In short, Chrome is necessary to stimulate the browser world.

Now about the EULA, clause 11 looks terrible, yes, but I cannot fully agree that it was interpreted properly. The statement is disclosed with regard to Services, and Chrome is all but a service; it provides access, but it is not a service. In fact, the first comment over at SlashDot, states what I was thinking when I read Mike’s post… that is the Original TOS for Apps, and it does in fact apply to Google’s services (Video, Photo, Mail, Notebooks, Documents, Calendar, etc). Until it is made clear by Google, I’m not falling either way, but there is always Chromium, which has no such things (due to open-source license).

That said, I really have no intention of replacing Firefox, that’d be crazy. I don’t plan on using Chrome in the future either, as all my systems are linux-flavored atm. Still, I like Google’s move, and I like even more their reimplemented ECMA (javascript) engine V8.

Mozilla SQUEEZE….