[kxt]

It's distributed under BSD license, no EULA can screw that. Every attempt at it could be averted by getting the BSD licensed code and making own builds without any strings attached.

That infamous EULA was intented for other Google services, and was mistakenly used for the browser. Supposedly (I haven't actually read it) it was already changed/clarified.

[rubentopo]

True, but that is not true for other languages other than english. At least the spanish EULA is still the same.

So if i build google chrome by myself without any changes whatsoever and use the product of my build do i unbind myself from the EULA?

[kxt]

Yes, the code is available under the BSD license, which is basically a "do whatever you want" license. You can download it, you can build it, you can redistribute it. You can even rebrand it and start selling it, although it wouldn't make you the most popular person around the internets.

It's the binary that was (and as you noted, is) distributed under that unfortunate EULA. For me it is really clear that they did not intend to have such an EULA, with the BSD licensed code, it REALLY makes no sense.

BTW, a somewhat similar issue struck Firefox too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_software_rebranding

A trademark/branding issue resulted in Debian Linux having a browser called Iceweasel instead of Firefox, built from the same sources.