Chrome is only free software if you build it from source (http://code.google.com/intl/de/chromium/terms.html http://code.google.com/intl/de/chromium/terms.html)

Chrome is only free software if you build it from source (http://code.google.com/intl/de/chromium/terms.html http://code.google.com/intl/de/chromium/terms.html). If you use their pre-built executable (as most people do), different terms apply (http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_text.html http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_text.html). Also, the license isn't everything. It is also important which entity controls the official version of a software. It makes a huge difference whether the decision process is designed for transparency, or whether you can only audit the produced code commits afterwards. So instead of forking Firefox, it might be a better idea to fork Chrome. That way, we'd have an independent version that's regularily checked (and fixed) by persons outside of Google. And we could also provide a free binary to which Google's strange terms doesn't apply. (It would be interesting to see how Google reacts on such a fork. Will they insist on their term and try to apply them to the sources, or will they keep Chrome being free software?)