Today a saw a post on http://www.pendriveapps.com/ where they posted lupo pensuit and Portableapps.com suit. I sent them a message asking them to take it down.
I removed the quoted text because I read some small text that said I could not post any of the contents of the email :/
He replied and then he checked what I told him and removed the link.
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
Yeah, Lupo doesn't redistribute the sources for any of the apps he redistributes. Nor does he have permission for Firefox or some of the other apps he repackages. You could let them know about LiberKey, too, which also doesn't have permission to repackage Firefox, Opera, or most of the freeware... I think they posted about LiberKey at some point on their site.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I noticed LiberKey is not that bad and even you changed the way you talk about it :
The only thing you could tell is they don't have permission to "repackage Firefox, Opera or most of the freeware"... but that's your opinion while they say they have the permission.
Who should I believe ?
personally, I prefer this site. I've been here 3 years and I know the stuff it is good. As for liberkey, they've played to many games for my liking and they finally put up some of that stuff when they got called out on lifehacker for it.
We also test things more thoroughly.
Too many lonely hearts in the real world
Too many bridges you can burn
Too many tables you can't turn
Don't wanna live my life in the real world
You don't have to believe anybody, why don't you ask Mozilla? I'm sure they could tell you definitively if Liberkey has permission or not.
Furthermore, nobody is forcing you to use PortableApps.com, you always have choices.
I use other portable freeware apps not from this site, but I do try to stay away from the illegal stuff.
I looked into a LiberKey package some weeks ago. They tell they offer the source. And they do so. But it's not the source of their launchers but the source of the original app, at least so for VLC.
If they copy or not, you can't really say without seeing the lauchner's source. Their launchers are a bit smaller, but this might also be just removing the Splash.
Of course they might publish some before us, but the problem is this "some". This still doesn't eliminate the opportunity that every app which comes later might be copied.
So over all, I think this is a quite difficult thing to solve and every step in telling the other they're doing wrong is complete nonsens without proves.
"Der Klügere gibt nach, deshalb regieren Dumme die Welt."
About source code, I don't understand why they should provide their launcher's source code. It's a launcher for (some) open source apps, not an open source application itself, right ?
Anyway, I spend many times on both LiberKey and PortableApps forum (not writing that much but reading :)) and I hope this guerilla between LB and PA will finally end in a near future because I like both of these platforms and both of the teams.
Thank you for your time and answers.
There's a big difference between what we do here and what Christophe (aka LiberKey) does. Here, we have a team with procedures, open code, gaining permissions from publishers, working with open source projects. There, Christophe, as sole developer, takes what he wants, how he wants, without asking permission. He was caught in the lie when a reporter asked him to provide any proof of his claims that he has a license/permission to repackage Firefox, Opera, uTorrent, or any of the other apps that you need permission to repackage. An email, a contact at any of the companies, anything would have sufficed. Yet Christophe couldn't answer the question, because he knew he had no permission and had just been hoping to keep doing what he's doing.
We, on the other hand, work with publishers and have done press releases with our freeware publishers like 2x, had others do press releases about our work like Mozilla, work with publishers like TeamViewer to make their apps available portably on their own sites, work directly with developers within organizations like OpenOffice.org, etc. That's the biggest difference between the two. The main reason he hasn't gotten into more trouble is because LiberKey has a relatively small userbase and isn't that well known outside of France. Sooner or later, he'll have to face the legal music of the activities he's engaged in.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
There's a big difference between what we do here and what Christophe (aka LiberKey) does. Here, we have a team with procedures, open code, gaining permissions from publishers, working with open source projects.
OK, I agree. I am aware of the differences in the process. That's why I use PortableApps for my personnal stuff (OpenSource, Rules --> more confident) and LiberKey as a toolbox (auto-updates for X hundreds applications).
He was caught in the lie when a reporter asked him to provide any proof of his claims that he has a license/permission to repackage Firefox, Opera, uTorrent, or any of the other apps that you need permission to repackage.
Once again, the only thing you could tell is they don't have permission to repackage some apps. But it's still accusations without evidence.
Sooner or later, he'll have to face the legal music of the activities he's engaged in.
You may say I'm cynical but there are two possibilities :
Anyway, LiberKey has some interessant features and alternative is always a good thing, right ?
I can't really speak for developers here but I think part of the issue is that essentially, many people work hard on this project, and for someone like Liberkey to come along, borrow (steal) the hard work of others, take shortcuts (not get permission/not make sources available) etc is upsetting to those that try to do things "by the book".
Most of us don't like to see people become successful (relative term) by "cheating", which is essentially what it seems Liberkey is doing. You could make arguments that he's not physically hurting anybody, and he has honorable intentions etc but other people are working very hard, and he is working less hard but still gaining credit for doing less work.
But I really like their (his) website. (I just saw it right now). All flash (I think).
And I saw that favicon load and I was like "hey WOT says its bad" but then I saw it was green and I was like "huh?" That guy needs a better logo
I looked at screenshots of his menu too, it looks cheesy though (His made me think his menu would look awesome, but I was disappointed).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think lupo sucks, though. I was trying it out... do you have any idea how long it took me to put all my apps on the menu??? Me neither.
I gave up after 32 and got back to PAM.
all flash is awful
Too many lonely hearts in the real world
Too many bridges you can burn
Too many tables you can't turn
Don't wanna live my life in the real world
I believe the terminology is "all show and no substance"
your friendly neighbourhood moderator Zach Thibeau
all mouth and no trousers
LOL
Liberkey is back on the site.
[link removed by my self]
But maybe we shouldn't get so wound up about it, if (he knows him self) he is really doing stuff he should not, I'm sure life will catch up on him one way or another.
No matter, if we have all these discussions about it here. Even worse, it gives him publicity !!!
[edit: removed the link, I don't wanna give him publicity]
Formerly Gringoloco
Windows XP Pro sp3 x32
I never told him about Liberkey. lupo is the one I asked him to take down since lupo has copied Portableapps.com launchers and removed the sources and posted them has his own.
"It's just an online installer. It's not going to mug you.", JTH
"The shell is the key to unlock Linux's greatest advantages."
LiberKey has done the exact same thing in the past with our launchers (remove source, disable splash, remove GPL, remove our bookmarks from FF, etc). He finally 'complied' by making his own closed source launchers (what he based them on is left as an exercise for the reader).
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Another aspect which has not been explored is the matter of pride. John and the other developers here take a lot of pride in their work and it shows. LiberLupo and the warez monkey blog very obviously don't. Is there a greater testament against the pride of your own work than plagiarism?
That being said, have Mozilla themselves definitively stated and confirmed that A) PortableApps.com has the right to use their logo and trademark and B) Liberkey, Lupo, and the warez monkey blogger do not? Now clearly the latter is much more important, but while I trust John on the former, it would be a great backing to the latter if it could be presented as proof.
We've been working with Mozilla for a *LONG* time now. Their first public mention of my work, specifically, goes back to January 7th, 2005, when they were announcing the USB initiatives around Firefox and Thunderbird in connection with the recently-announced U3 platform. The press release can be found on their site here:
http://www-archive.mozilla.org/press/mozilla-2005-01-07.html
This was after I'd moved "Portable Firefox" from JohnHaller.com (where it lived from March 2004 until it was Slashdotted) onto portablefirefox.mozdev.org but before I'd re-branded it as PortableApps.com later in 2005. The press release was around the U3 platform after it had just been announced. If you'll recall, I built the U3 versions of Firefox and Thunderbird as well, with the direct cooperation of Mozilla and U3 before parting ways with U3 when it became clear that they weren't taking their platform in the right direction (aka, keeping it too closed).
We've worked together on the format, functionality and branding of "Mozilla Firefox, Portable Edition" and Mozilla has helped guide the direction and signed off on everything from the name to the actual splash screen and logo placements. That's why the bottom of the app's homepage says "Mozilla®, Firefox® and the Firefox logo are registered trademarks of the Mozilla Foundation and are used under license."
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Like I said, I trust you when you say you have Mozilla's permission, and I know that you did Firefox and Thunderbird for U3, but also I remember you told someone that Mozilla's permission doesn't extend to them, it stops with you. So by the same token, U3's permission wouldn't extend to individuals associated with U3. Again, I'm not asking for proof, but if LiberKey or Lupo did (why they would is beyond me, but thinking in the hypothetical) they'd be right to reject that page for the reasons you'd given in the other topic (I think it was the Firefox+Flash package).
It's the other way around. Portable Firefox existed first (by a long shot) and, because of my previous work on that, I worked on Firefox for U3 as well (using the same code base, actually). That press release links to my Portable Firefox (which Mozilla Firefox, Portable Edition used to be called), not Firefox for U3 (which didn't yet exist and wouldn't until U3 actually existed beyond the announcement many months later). There was originally a different Firefox built for U3 by someone other than me, but that one was ditched for mine as well.
My point is that I did Firefox for U3 not because U3 had permission to do a Firefox build and then I did it, but because I had permission from Mozilla to do both. That's also one of the big reasons why, when I left U3, that Firefox for U3 was no longer updated.
You can't get much more legitimate than a press release linking to your work published by the company that gave you permission to do said work.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
OK, got it. I thought I understood the relationship between you, U3, and Portable Firefox/MFPE, but I guess I didn't have a few facts right. That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. I guess I was just expecting something not mentioning U3 at all, saying that PortableApps.com, not U3, is partnered in some capacity with Mozilla.
That press release was mainly because U3 had just been announced (to great/expensive fanfare) and had won an award at Demo at the time, so Mozilla wanted to be out with the fact that they were supporting the effort, hence the press release. As we've never done any really expensive promotions (we have less cash on hand that Sandisk and MSystem did at the time, heh), there is no such press release for the straight portable version, despite the fact that it is many times more popular than the U3 version ever was. Just a confluence of market factors that caused that press release to exist at all, really.
We'll probably do some press releases on our bigger hardware partnerships.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Well said Nathan! Internet high^5
Cancer Survivors -- Remember the fight, celebrate the victory!
Help control the rugrat population -- have yourself spayed or neutered!
But this time by Lightspeed systems.
http://www.lightspeedsystems.com/Archive/WebsiteDetails.aspx?domain=lupo...
And I think they catagorized it wrong.