Hi,
I was wondering about the apps on [link removed by mod Tim] a lot of them seem to be software that costs money (dreamweaver, etc) and I was wondering if they are legal. I dont think they are...are they?
Thanks for all replies!!!!
New: MKVToolNix (May 01, 2024), Platform 29.5 (Apr 24, 2024)
1,100+ portable packages, 1.1 billion downloads
Please donate today
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on BlueSky
as far as I know, this site isn't to popular around here, because of their actions...
Notice the rip off of this sites logo etc. and also the illigal pirated apps...
I would expect that the link will be removed real soon by a mod, and someone who knows more will let you know exactly what they do that is wrong...
“There is a computer disease that anybody who works with computers knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is that you 'play' with them!”Richard Feynman
Welcome to PortableApps.com
Many of the applications hosted there are illegal copies of commercial ($$$) software.
Also, the "Portable" apps that are also apps found here are mostly illegal copies as well, along with the website itself infringing on Trademarks & Copyrights.
You are correct, they are not.
We do not even allow links to that site for many reasons.
I have removed the link from your post, thanks for understanding.
Moderator Tim
Things have got to get better, they can't get worse, or can they?
Thanks for all your replies!
However, they also have stuff like Google Chrome, which is a free download
If I get the portable version of, for example, Google Chrome, is that still illegal?
Thanks again!
yangt299
Search the site here, there are a few test releases of Chromium (which is what Google Chrome is built on).
TSTSNBN, as I'm gonna start calling it, because "The Site That Shall Not Be Named" is too much to type out, does not have the right to host non-commercial freeware under the license of that software.
I do not believe it is illegal for you to download non-commercial freeware from an unauthorized source. Because, what's the difference once it's downloaded? There probably isn't one. But I do know it is illegal for them to be hosting that.
What's funny is that they're on a blog owned by Google, and they're offering illegal downloads of Google software (Chrome, and they recently put Picasa up there).
Let's give the devil his due, the guy is pretty bright. He's not just ripping off apps from this site. He's redone the format, using his own logo and marks (which are ripped off from here, but still, he's done work), and he's added an updates notification feature which is very good. Also, he does apps long before they're done here. He does Firefox the day it comes out, where it takes PA.c a day or two. He's already got Notepad++ 5.5 and VLC 1.0.2, and he's had them for over a week, and PA.c hasn't got either out the door yet. Not to mention he's got many programs we can't get here, like Chrome, Opera, XnView, etc.
I don't condone a lot of his actions, and I won't use his version of apps I can get here if I wait a couple weeks (e.g. Notepad++ and VLC). I certainly won't use commercial payware apps, e.g. he recently added Adobe Lightroom. I ain't touching that. But it is a good portable resource for what it is, if you're aware of the caveats.
It's a shame, he contacted me over a blog article I wrote condemning his site for ripping off this one, and after some rude comments, we established a friendly enough dialog. He's got the typical attitude that payware wants to be free and freeware can be distributed without permission. I suggested that he contribute to this site for his legal, open source work, but... that's when he stopped talking to me.
Can someone clarify though, if it's a violation to use freeware downloaded from unauthorized mirrors (like TSTSNBN) or just to host it? Because really, once it's on your machine, it's no different than if you downloaded it from an authorized source, right?
No, you're wrong, because the package has still been modified against the license(s).
Yeah, but once it's on your computer, does that still matter? Sure it matters when it's up online for anyone to have, but are the modifications still a big deal when it's just you using it for personal reasons?
I get what you're saying and I fully understand why, for example, other sites that have Portable Firefox, or Firefox modified in other ways, are wrong, but once you get it... OK, my Firefox has Adblock Plus, QuickProxy, Colors (Personas and other features), BBCode, and a couple others. To package and redistribute this package as Firefox would be wrong. I get that. But now that the program is on my computer, I can freely modify it, as long as I don't distribute it as such, right? I mean, of course that's right with Firefox because it's open source (and use of extensions is a feature), but is it so different with non-commercial freeware? I'm trying to think of an example, but I'm coming up empty.
...OK, what about live installers? A live installer downloads non-commercial, closed source freeware and puts it into the launcher's subfolders. If that is OK, what is the difference between getting the live installer and letting it download, and just getting a portable app? It's the same when all's said and done, isn't it?
I didn't mean to stop talking to you. I don't make apps portable. I don't even know how. (except for using "UniExtract", but I don't think that it's truly portable - because I don't know if it leaves registry stuff behind or not.) I contacted the guy that makes them and he never got back to me. I don't mean harm, and I won't talk about "that" site or having anything to do with "that" site while I am on here. I am not even mentioning the name or anything.
Oh, portablecrapz is a funny name... lol.
I want to be a good boy and be nice.
The person I was talking to seemed to be the dude making the apps there.
Anyway, Universal Extractor ("UniExtract") doesn't make anything anything else, it just extracts files from installer. Using it on an installer is just the first step to making an app portable. The .exe (the program) will have various dependencies, some in the folder, and some elsewhere. If .NET is a dependency, it won't be able to be made portable, most likely. If the Registry is a dependency, that can be hacked with the launchers -- that's their primary focus. That and redirecting files. Registry entries and %APPDATA file redirection is the bread and butter of application portability (aside from not hard-coding such dependencies into the app to start with).
so UniExtract does or doesn't make an app portable?
And you were talking to me, BUT I am not the one that makes the apps. I don't even know what country he lives in, why he makes apps, or anything else.
http://i48.tinypic.com/azjpxz.jpg
Ah, I see. But as you can see from the emails, I was convinced you were. In fact, I'm looking at that thread in Gmail, and your first message was what convinced me. What was said and the email address it came from. I'm not going to post the full text in public, email's private for a reason, but the time stamp should be the same. I'm talking about a message on 27 May 2009 at 23:11 (11:11 PM), subject "hey".
Also wouldn't mind my last name being obscured as well, it's kind of strange to see my full name being posted "in the wild", but then again, I suppose you can see it by mousing over the "Homepage" link above any of my posts, so don't worry about it. Don't have anything to hide, and I've always felt if you're serious and honest you should put your name on something.
Again, I don't mean to accuse you, that's just how it seemed. Though I don't care if you don't know what country he resides in, or he's your brother, if he's not you, that means he's not you and you're not the one ripping off this site's works, just an advocate of theirs. I'm not PortableApps, but I advocate them. As the email you posted shows, as well as posts I've made publicly, I don't place them on an undeservedly high pedestal, but I do try to give respect where it's due. And your brother/friend/associate/whomever does pump out releases faster than PortableApps.com, but they do more testing here. I'm fine with waiting -- the one app that really needs updates is Firefox, and updating it seems to be a priority here, so that's good. Other apps? Not so important. Like KeePass, I've put off updating 1.16 to 1.17 at home and on the flash drive. It's one of those apps that just works. It's one of my most important apps, but unlike Firefox, it really doesn't need updates (unless something is found to be broken).
And no, UniExtract doesn't make an app portable. It might make it usable from computer to computer, which might be portable enough for you, but PortableApps.com stipulates that it must leave no personal information behind, and it might do that and still work. So they use a launcher that lets it think it's writing to the Registry and %APPDATA (applications' temp folder) when really it's sandboxed.
I deleted the picture, the link should no longer work. (and I doubt that many people saw it.) Dude, I am NOT here to talk about the "other" site. Just to clear up that I talked to (the guy that makes the apps) and he didn't get back to me. I don't know anything at all about him, except for his first name. John (on here) publicly posts his first and last name and even has a facebook. So he isn't hiding. He has no reason to. I enjoy apps from this site because they have NEVER once messed up or screwed anything up. For instance, Firefox portable on here has NEVER messed up my installed Firefox. I had to start from scratch more than once with "other" portable versions of Firefox because it overwrote my installed Firefox. (they did fix the issue and it's a good idea to keep a backup of your installed Firefox anyway. ***MozBackup***) I still don't trust any other portable version of Firefox, EXCEPT for the version posted on this site.
It loaded for me too, but then I cleared my cache and tried again. Wasn't too worried about others seeing it, but thanks anyway.
A badly portablized Firefox would probably do just as you said, mess with the locally installed one. We had an issue on this site a while back where if Firefox was allowed to update itself, it would break portability. I understand that is no longer the case. Still, I don't even install Firefox anymore. I just keep the portable one and put a shortcut on my desktop. I don't mind if the occasional link opens in IE -- it's a (barely) passable browser with nobody's personal information in it.
Facebook... I really need to learn how to use it. I'm now a "fan" of PortableApps up there. Already following on Twitter. But the Facebook interactivity will be nice as well.
that's funny because I just became a fan today as well. I already get RSS feeds, so screw it. Might as well add them on facebook.
I'm guessing this thread is about the site I'm thinking of: I found MalwareBytes Portable recently, and after installing (noticed it was a nice paf installer too. Sorry if the terminology I use is terrible or plain wrong!), I noticed how similar it looked to a portableapps.com installer. I mean, apart from a colour change, they haven't gone to much effort to change anything logo-wise!
Signature automatically removed for containing links
Cause the are trying to make people think it's ours and therefore good quality and legal, which theirs are NOT.
iLike Macs, iPwn, However you put it... Apple is better ^_^
"Claiming that your operating system is the best in the world because more people use it is like saying McDonalds makes the best food in the world..."
They can't use our installer.
John has specified that only Open Source programs can use it and freeware companies that have permission.
They're neither and therefore, should be notified.
Yes, the site we are talking about has Malwarebytes. (I should know...
)
However, it should be noted that just because a site steals the PortableApps.com logo and uses the PortableApps.com Format (PAF) does not necessarily mean that the software is indeed portable as defined by PortableApps.com's definition of portability. It might... or it might work good enough for your needs, but I doubt it's been tested as extensively. I can't say for certain any of their apps in fact have been done to lower standards, but they do churn them out awfully fast, so it is a possibility. Just saying.
Also note that even open source stuff there is not legal to have nor to use as they don't include the source code (for open source) and haven't got permission (everything else).