PortableApps.com Installer says the installer licence is:
"License: Free / Open Source (GPL) with exceptions for freeware and free open source. Commercial use by contacting PortableApps.com."
I've noticed comments in other posts suggesting you can't use the installer unless you confirm to the "paf" standard?
This doesn't sound like opensource software to me - let alone GPL'd software!
Free as in FREEDOM, not price!
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on BlueSky
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on Twitter
The installer is open source, you just cannot include the TRADEMARKED PortableApps.com name and logos unless you comply with the PortableApps.com Format Specification.
This has little to do with open source, mostly with following trademark laws.
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
I don't see the problem.
The PAF Format and Installer is a program built around a specification, as I understand it. If you don't agree with the specifications, I wasn't aware you couldn't use the installer, but I figure you can use any old installer, e.g. NSIS. As long as the file/folder output conforms to a simple structure (and really, it doesn't even have to do all that, as long as the .exe is in a folder under the PortableApps folder in the root of the drive) it will work with the menu.
But if you want to develop portable applications, you'll want something which is close to the format/standard, as it's been agreed upon over the past few years. I don't know their rules for deviation from the standard, but I do know they're working to create an open format. They're not trying to lock anybody in or out.
I don't understand all of PA's commercial aspirations. As an end user it doesn't apply to me. I would imagine that:
...means that if you want to sell software in the PA format, you've probably got to pay something. So say, speaking purely hypothetically, you're the author of a program you charge $50 for, and PA says they want 10%. You raise the price of the portable version by $5, 10% becomes $5.50, and $49.50 is close enough to $50 that you probably won't care. The math could be done a little better, but that's off the top of my head. And again, I don't know what the commercial side is all about.
That's the impression I was getting - but it's completly against the whole point of GPL'd and free (as in freedom) software!
Also, the NSIS installer, which the portableapps installer is based on, is under the Common Public License - so it's not clear where the GPL fits in?
Unless the installer the portableapps.com installer software creates is claimed to be under the GPL?
Maybe, I don't know. You seem to be coming from the point of view that open source means you can do whatever you want with it, free from most rules that govern other licenses. That's the impression I get as well.
But the PortableApps.com Format is a specification to make something portable. If you don't want something portable, why use the Format? And, as I understand it, you actually can use the installer for that, you just can't use the trademarks. I understand that the trademarks are to establish brand credibility. It's for the same reason Mozilla trademarked Firefox. A web browser needs a high level of credibility. Open source adds a ton, but it can be abused. That's why Mozilla lets people alter Firefox, but they gotta call it something else. If they want to improve the actual Firefox, there is a channel to do that by. There are actually a couple. First, you can make an extension. Second, you can work with Mozilla. I don't know how all that works. I do know they have an extensive community of developers, though.
Making something other than a portable installer with the PortableApps.com Format makes about as much sense as watching a DVD with Firefox. You can make an extension, I suppose, that would let you open a DVD with Firefox and add basic controls, and that could be interesting, but don't expect to be able to compile it into Firefox, compile it as Firefox, and redistribute it as Firefox.
That make a bit more sense to me, if it's all down to trademarks use.
In that case, it's pretty much as I thought, anyone can use the installer to do whatever they want (subject to the GPL) - though perhaps only as long as they strip out any graphics and references to portableapps.com, which if they're trademarks, are not under the GPL.
I'm guessing this also explains the comment on that page about commercial use - anyone can use it for commercial use if it's under the GPL, but they'd have to release their changes, etc under the GPL.
(Though whether anyone would want to produce a modified version commercially, and have to give it away under the GPL is another matter...!)
In which case, that part of the WWW page badly needs to be rephrased - the way it's written atm it looks as though you can't use the portableapps installer for commercial purposes - which (obviously) the GPL certainly does permit.
I'm still not too sure about whether CPL'd software can be repackaged and released under the GPL though?
That's exactly it. It's all about trademarks, which was said in the very first comment to this post.
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
John didn't release the code into the public domain, and the trademarks are his too. You need to do some research on what open source means and what the GPL and other open source licenses actually permit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt
Vintage!
I'm not suggesting he released it into the public domain; AFAIK the installer is under the GPL.
My original comment stands - imposing any restrictions which go beyond the GPL (e.g. only allowing it to be used to produce packages which conform to the portableapps format) clearly remove peoples rights to use the software, whereas the GPL is designed (see the links you yourself posted) to protect peoples rights.
OTOH, if it's all down to trademarks, as the other guy said, that could explain it a bit.
That page really needs to be made clearer though; it's phrased pretty badly atm if there are further restrictions on the installers output and use due to any trademarks.
First of all, jamcomm, calm down. You've been hyperactive in the past few days. Please stop putting every nth word in capitals, bold, italics, etc.
It's really all about name integrity. To start with, under the GPL, there are severe restrictions on how you can go about bundling GPL and closed-source libraries, so an exception makes it legal/clearer that it's allowed (not sure which exactly... an installer is a bit of a touchy subject with licensing).
But the main point in it all is name integrity. PortableApps.com has a reputable name - we are really the trusted entity in matters of portability. You don't want people being able to say "PortableApps.com Format!" unless they are PortableApps.com Format compliant. And you don't want to give users a sense of security by seeing the PortableApps.com branding if they shouldn't be having a sense of security due to problems in it... so the solution is saying that you are not welcome to use "our" (PortableApps.com's) branding unless it's certified software.
I am a Christian and a developer and moderator here.
“A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” – Proverbs 15:1
I'm not talking about closed-source libraries, or commercial products.
If you have written some GPL'd software, and want to release a protableapps.com version of it, it should be clearer what you can and can't do with the portableapps.com installer - that's all I'm saying!
atm, it claims to be under the GPL - which gives everyone certain rights wrt using it. It can be used freely under the GPL licence. Graphics and all.
There's no mention that, well actually(!), all of the branding, etc ISN'T under the GPL, and John Haller wants it under a more restrictive licence to try to "protect" the brand name.
It's a bit dodgy bundling the graphics and logos in with the GPL'd installer anyway - legally, even if it's trademarked - you've given everyone a licence (the GPL) to use those trademarks, graphics, logos, etc.
...Which from the sounds of it, isn't what's wanted! (See your post for good reasons why!)
I would suggest (and I just know you're not going to like this...) either:
1) Making the licence clearer on the download page
For example: "Licence: GPL, except for portableapps.com branding. Installers generated by this software include portableapps.com branding and are subject to trademark restrictions, a licence for using which can be found here"
2) Modify the installer generator to strip out the branding and logos, etc. Then make the download genuinely GPL'd, without further restrictions wrt any trademark use.
Then have a separate ZIP file you can download with all the branding related images, logos, etc. under a different licence; whatever's wanted to try to protect the brand name.
When you run the installer, it allows you to specify a directory where it'll read branding from.
This would make creating installers more painful, but noone's in any doubt what's OK and what isn't.
AND WHAT'S MORE! This would make the installer much more open and FLEXIBLE! Anyone could generate an installer for their software with their own graphics, etc!
Cool!
Still no comments on the NSIS CPL though... But not a STRONG in sight!
That middle smily went a bit funny?!
jamcomm, you must have been an old-school web developer, writing code by hand (well, manually). That or, like me, you use BBCode to cheat. Or... something. It is with wit and a small amount of admiration, but no disrespect, that I say you make me glad I have BBCode (and have it set up for custom code - PA quoting, PA emoticon breaking (really just code tags), strong, and emphasis).
What you're saying makes sense. PA actually does this, I think, for the splash screens. Only official apps get the clever splash with the PA logo. Everything else gets the fugly "Developmental Test Release - Alpha or Beta Quality" logo. Or whatever it says. Apparently the real logo only gets made and added after the app has been extensively tested, and is approved by JTH & co.
It's the Nintendo approach to publishing. Only Nintendo makes Nintendo cartridges. Their developers send them the code, and Nintendo writes to the carts, but only after extensive testing, QA, and approval. And then, at least back in the NES days, Nintendo would only release so many titles from each publisher a year, they were very picky about it. Nintendo is not a company other companies liked working with.
But it just goes to show, you're right. The installer should follow suit with the splash. It should make it clear that the app is not up to par with PortableApps.com's world-class level of quality yet, that it's just alpha or beta quality, regardless of how good it is. Then, when it gets finalized and everybody's happy, it can get the branding. Before then, its beta status would not have to guarantee anything. Chris, JTH, would that not work?