@abucci@anthony.buc.ci To be fair, it was already codified there. What is more interesting (to me) is how they’re using a privacy policy (binding their users) in an attempt to get implicit licensing over materials out of the scope of those services, both from their users and others (or of authors unknown). Not that it matters much, I bet they’d argue such license is unneeded, but the fact that they decided to have that wording there makes me curious about the legal basis of such clause. Yes, I know Goggle had an extensive and capable legal team, but I’d still love seeing a legal analysis of the applicability of that under various jurisdictions.