Non-exclusive just means that Dropbox isn't the only licensee. I've never once seen a consumer-facing TOS that purported to be exclusive. That's really not the issue here.
The issue is whether the scope of Dropbox's license is overly-broad, given the service that they're providing.
Under the Google TOS, Google says:
"This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services."
Now, take a look at Dropbox's new TOS:
"...to the extent reasonably necessary for the Service. This license is solely to enable us to technically administer, display, and operate the Services."
Dropbox's license is actually MORE limited in scope than Google's. I don't really understand why people are freaking out about this particular issue.
IMO, the security issue and their handling of that is more important.
(The post is informational only, not intended to be legal advice or to create an attorney-client privilege).
Except that _wasn't_ the new TOS at the time the articles went up. They changed it _after_ the world exploded. See the bottom of their blog entry: http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846
The issue is whether the scope of Dropbox's license is overly-broad, given the service that they're providing.
Under the Google TOS, Google says:
"This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services."
Now, take a look at Dropbox's new TOS:
"...to the extent reasonably necessary for the Service. This license is solely to enable us to technically administer, display, and operate the Services."
Dropbox's license is actually MORE limited in scope than Google's. I don't really understand why people are freaking out about this particular issue.
IMO, the security issue and their handling of that is more important.
(The post is informational only, not intended to be legal advice or to create an attorney-client privilege).