Picasa for Mac? Where?

Did Google really release their desktop photo management software Picasa for Mac yesterday? Because there's a press release that says they did, but both times I have tried to download the Picase 3 Public BETA release for Mac all I get is the Picasa Web Albums Uploader for Mac. According to the help page I should get 'picasamac.dmg' but as you can see that's not what downloads.

Thankfully the Terms of Use you are signing up too after you click 'Download Picasa for Mac (beta)' are the standard Google for Mac Terms of Use; could have been a little problematic if you're agreeing to terms that do not correspond with the software you are provided with.

Clearly the download link is directing users to the wrong page. If you open the PicasaWebAlbumsUploaders.mpkg file you will instal the Picasa Web Albums Uploader not Picasa 3.

Certainly doesn't look anything like the screenshot in the press release.

While we're on the Picasa Web Albums Uploader and since I am not playing around with Picasa 3 for Mac I'll take the time now to also say that I never really saw the need for the Uploader standalone software since the same package automatically instals the Picasa iPhoto plug-in which is much better and integrates right into iPhoto. Still, at this point it seems like you can't get the Picasa desktop application for Mac... just yet anyway...

In the meantime here's Google's official video about Picassa for Mac, to give you an idea of what it should do.

UPDATE (6 January 2009, 11.11am): It seems someone at Google picked up on the issue pretty quickly. I'm not exactly sure when but when I tired to download the Mac public Beta for Picasa 3 just after 11 o'clock the splash page and Disk image (*.dmg file) had been corrected.

I plan to write a detailed post about Picasa 3 for Mac when I've had a good play around with it. Stay tuned.

No more (PD)Fing about with PDF attachments! Introducing PDF Viewer to GMail

Google has integrated the Google Docs PDF Viewer Gmail (I haven't quite gotten used to calling it Google Mail yet) meaning you can finally view PDFs without having to launch Adobe Reader (either the desktop application or within the browser) or use the HTML view in Google Docs which often doesn't display formatting and strips images. Since today, when you receive an email that includes a PDF attachment you are given a 'View' option next to the file. I didn't have any emails with a PDF attached so I sent myself one so I could demonstrate.

Using the PDF Viewer in Gmail

To launch the PDF Viewer click 'View' under any PDF attachment in your email. It opens in a new window within Google Docs (which means you need to be signed up for Google Docs to use the service).

The default display shows the first page of the document in the main frame (left hand side), In the right hand section you have your navigation, arrangement, search and zoom tools as well as thumbnails of each page in the document.

The arrow buttons allow you to move through the pages of the document, showing you which page you are on (and how many pages there are). The plus ( + ) and minus ( – ) buttons zoom the document in or out. The two buttons between the zoom buttons reconfigure the document between displaying 1 page, with the rest of the document flowing on sequentially (see above) and displaying two pages next to each other with the subsequent spreads flowing on sequentially (see below).

At this state the search function (under the zoom and arrangement buttons) will return results based on a keyword search. Returned results appear directly below the tools section and before the page thumbnails.

The original function to view a PDF in HTML is now accessible via the 'Plain HTML' link at the top of the left column. It also provides links to 'Download' or 'Print' the document.

I'm tipping it won't be long before we see the PDF Viewer integrated into Google search results.

Import/Export graduates from Blogger in Draft

Just a quick note to announce that the Import/Export feature released as part of Blogger in Draft back in June has now been integrated into all Blogger blogs. Now it doesn't matter if you're in Draft or Blogger classic, you can backup, merge and manage your blog entries and comments as a convenient single, Atom -formatted XML file.

I posted about it as a feature of Blogger in Draft, and since there is nothing much else to add head over there to find out about the feature.

How to remove Google CalDAV

If you're like me, and wasn't satisfied with the sync provided by Google CalDAV, then here's a way to get rid of it since Google doesn't seem to have any information on how to do it. It is actually easier than you think.

Step 1
Open iCal. Click on the iCal drop-down menu and then click on Preferences (or you can click ). You're probably be in the General options section.

Step 2
Click on the Accounts button to display the CalDAV accounts for your Google calendars that you are subscribed to.

Step 3
Select one of the CalDAV accounts that you want to remove from the list in the Accounts section on the left.

Step 4
Press the minus ( – ) button below the Accounts section to remove the selected calendar.

Step 5
Confirm that you want to remove the calendar by pressing 'Delete.'

Step 6
Unfortunately you can't hold the Control key and select multiple accounts to remove at the same time do you will need to repeat Steps 3, 4 and 5 for each calendar you want to remove.

And now you're free of Google CalDAV syncing!

Your sync stinks! Problems with Google Calendar CalDAV

Ok so no one told me that Google had introduced CalDAV syncing (the download package is cutely named Calaboration ) so you can sync Google Calendar and Apple's iCal together (announced here and here). For ages you've been able to feed your Google calendars into iCal (not sure how? Find out here), but it meant you always had to go to Google Calendar to make changes to your calendars. If you added events on iCal it would reside with a local (ie on your computer) calendar. You could only sync from Google Calendar to iCal, not the other way around.

Some third party applications started to allow you to sync both ways. My pick was Spanning Sync. I did the 15-day trial and was pretty happy with it so I purchased a licence for it. It's not overly pricey; I paid $65 for the lifetime licence, but there is a $25/year option too.

Anyway, on the quiet Google released the CalDAV sync feature. I gave it a whirl but I have to say I am not convinced it is better than what Spanning Sync does. Here's why:

Synced with Spanning Sync

Synced with Google CalDAV

Sure Google CalDAV is free, but the way it sorts your calendars that are synced just isn't useful for me. It's ugly. It's messy. It makes my list of calendars huge! Also, you can't sync calendars of different names. And event reminders and alarms are not synced. The whole reason I use an electronic calendar rather than a print diary is because it reminds me (well and it is searchable).

Also the CalDAV 2-way sync is a dodgy at best. Over the last couple of hours since I put it on only 1 of the 6 events I have added to iCal have come up in Google Calendar. Oh and apparently (I haven't actually tested it), any events added on iCal/Google Calendar will come up read only on an iPhone, meaning you can't change anything about those events on the phone. Surely that's why people have iPhones right?

Plus, on top of all of this, I keep getting this with CalDAV, even though everything is set up right:

You can find out all you want to know about using CalDAV in the Google Calendar help. You have to be using OS X 10.5 (Leopard) to use CalDAV.

If you've installed the CalDAV sync on your mac, I have posted a removal guide to help you get rid of it if you want to.

[And no, I am not part of Spanning Sync's Save 5 + Make 5 referral program. No upselling here]

The (Not So) Great Google Chrome EULA Debacle

I know there has been much discussion about the terms and conditions for Chrome. For the record I was totally aware of them. But I think that some of it was a bit fear-mongering and misrepresentative and some of it was out right wrong. As far as I am concerned a clause like the old clause 11 (extracted below) was nothing out of the ordinary really:

You retain copyright an any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, public, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sold purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

As much as I don't like people having to give up rights at all, the original term is pretty standard practice. I mean, look at the terms of use of most of the major social networks—for example clause 6, subclause 1 of the MySpace Terms and Conditions—they all take a licence from users to user content uploaded to the service/website to do stuff in relation to the service you've signed up to.

At least Google qualified the extent of the licence voluntarily (like many services are now doing), saying that the licence allowed them to use your content in relation to Google Chrome only. They weren't even taking rights to reuse that content on other Google services. The licence Facebook takes is far worse than Google's original term:

...By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing...

Anyway, regardless, as announced yesterday, Google changed the term. The new clause 11 in the EULA reads:

You retain copyright an any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, public, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sold purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

I was more fascinated by the sloppy drafting in relation to clause 10.2. It reads:

You may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any part thereof, unless this is expressly permitted or required by law, or unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google, in writing.

I thought Chrome was open source?! Funnily enough at the beginning of the EULA, before clause 1, it states:

These Terms of Service apply to the executable code version of Google Chrome. Source code for Google Chrome is available free of charge under open source software license agreements at http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html.

The licence that Chromium is under is a BSD Licence. At the Google Code Chromium page the terms of the BSD Licence are stated as:

BSD License
Copyright © 2008, The Chromium Authors
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

• Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
  
• Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
  
• Neither the name of the Google Inc. nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
  

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

This statement could be seen as express permission from Google to modify the source code but it seems strange to have a clause stating that you can't change the source code only the have another statement earlier in the document that says you can.

Picasa photo software now supports Creative Commons

Google's desktop photo management software Picasa now includes a rights management section of its settings to allow users to assert 'All Rights Reserved' or a Creative Commons licence. It was announced over on the Google Photos Blog. You can find the 'Photo Usage & Licensing' settings by going to Picasa Web Albums and clicking 'Settings' in the top right corner.

Scroll down about half way down the page and you will see the rights management section:

Choosing 'All Rights Reserved' in the 'Photo Usage & Licensing' section of the Picasa Web Albums settings.

Click 'Allow reuse with attribution' to get Google's licence generator. It provides you with three check boxes:

1. Allow remixing;
2. Allow commercial use; and
3. Require Share Alike.

Depending on the combination of these check boxes you check, one of the six standard CC licences will be generated. Using this setting option you apply a default CC licence to all the photos you upload. You can of course manage individual photos on a case-by-case basis. I applied Attribution only as the default on my web albums (what a surprise):

Choosing an Attribution Licence in the 'Photo Usage & Licensing' section of the Picasa Web Albums settings.

In a lot of ways this is an even simpler licence generator than the official Creative Commons one. What would be better would be if 'Require Share-Alike' didn't appear unless you'd click allow remixing. That way the licence chooser begins with permissions (a positive/open thing) rather than restrictions (a negative/closed thing). Of course a key issue with Google's chooser in Picasa is that it doesn't include the ability to choose a jurisdiction for your licence.

Update: Make sure you click 'Save settings' when you're done. LOL.

(Thanks to Fred Beneson. I found out about this via his post on the CC blog)