Hacker News Reader

Comment by chwahoo | Hacker News Reader

I do agree that Dropbox's wording is much friendlier, but I attribute most of the difference to Google having big plans (e.g., searching and sharing) and being careful that their terms will permit them. I suspect a big part of this is Google's intention to analyze your data to make it indexed/searchable (e.g., their 'search for Mt. Everest and get back your pictures of it' features).

View on HN

Really, the difference seems to be almost exclusively wording. Both licenses grant very broad powers to the service to redistribute (Google is guilty only of enumerating them more fully, where Dropbox simply claims "all the permissions we need"). Both providers include language that they will only do this in order "to provide the service", but neither enumerates exactly what that means.

Does anyone see anything specific that Dropbox can't do that Google can? That grant looks really broad to me, just ... friendlier.

What people are noticing is perceived intent. Dropbox is clear what their intent is. Google is less clear. People like clarity, especially ewhen dealing with personal items.

Google: "The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones."

Dropbox: "You give us the permissions we need to do those things solely to provide the Services."

I'm not sure there's any difference in intent or clarity here. I think it's clear that Dropbox is nicer about it. And because their product is smaller in scope maybe the rights they reserve seem less scary.

But really, I think this is a giant kerfuffle over nothing (fueled in no small part by the "Dropbox is on the HN team" feeling here). These licenses look almost 100% equivalent to me.

What isn't clear in "promoting" the Services?

Google can broadcast TV ads with your private photos if they want to.

No, they can't; don't be silly. That's not what "promoting" means, and in any case such a use would be a clear copyright violation (note elsewhere in the license where they make it clear that you still own the copyright). It seems clear to me that the intent is things like the Youtube "recommended" list. If you upload a public video, they need permission to repackage it for display in other contexts than direct viewing.

But if you insist on reading the license that uncharitably, you have to accept that Dropbox too can find plenty of wiggle room to be evil. Seriously, you're granting "all needed permissions" without enumeration -- you don't find that scary? What if Dropbox decides that "providing the service" requires revenue gained from scraping credit card numbers from stored files? See? I can come up with equally silly scenarios.

First off, if it's not clear, these are excerpts of their policies.

>Dropbox is clear what their intent is.

It seems that you have it backwards, Dropbox is not clear in their intent and the language is vague. I'm not sure what this means:

>You give us the permissions we need to do those things solely to provide the Services.

It seems that they can pretty much do whatever they want, as "Services" doesn't preclude anything.

>This permission also extends to trusted third parties we work with to provide the Services

That sounds like third parties can do whatever they want as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com