I've read the forum threads and understand the objections to including freeware (that is not OpenSource) or listing it on PortableApps.
One question: Would it be acceptable though for me to create a 'PortableApps Friendly' version of my freeware application and label it as such on my own site?
For the case of this application, the key constraints would be:
1. Store profile data and settings on the app path using a conforming directory structure
2. Write no data to the host machine (OS initiated MUI settings are acceptable)
3. Any external apps launched (Firefox in this case - for optional online help) to be also within the PortableApps environment.
For info, this is a developer tool. Currently the project is non-commercial, there is no planned commercial version, the web-site does not advertise and the application is redistributable.
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
I did hear John's a making some template for portable commercial apps, of course it's okay to say that (BTW, it's not "PortableApps Friendly", it's "In the PortableApps Format")
P.S. You're saying non-commercial as in OSS?
Insert original signature here with Greasemonkey Script.
Non commercial as in freeware. No, PortableApps Friendly works a lot better than In The PortableApps Format because tons of apps will work with the menu, but they are rarely in the PortableApps.com Format.
Well... I don't see any problem with that, but also I'm no developer.
I think that the installer is (or was) only allowed to OSS apps, so I'm not sure.
But you must understand that, even if the App is PortableApps friendly, we can't host it here as we use SourceForge.
Don't forget that we are trying to expand our support to freeware apps (although it is difficult)
Anyway, if it is not possible, you can always create an launcher for your app and do it OpenSource (the launcher).
EDIT: You were faster than me!!!
Blue is everything.
Cuz I know the cube root of 216.
Insert original signature here with Greasemonkey Script.
I don't see a problem as far as software licensing is concerned, however, you may have to get John's approval for use of the name.
Vintage!
Part of the process we're going through right now will open up the real PortableApps.com Format to true freeware apps for free. I'm still working on the draft spec and am off tomorrow, but I should be able to get the first draft up on Monday.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Note to self: Buy edible paper and eat spec.
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
mean like rice paper? Sounds like a good idea
Edit - The wikipedia page has instructions and everything!
Thanks for the quick responses on this question, it being my first post and all I wasn't quite expecting to wake up on a Sunday morning and see all this:-)
@John
I'll look forward to seeing the first draft for the PortableApps.com Format so will hang fire on doing anything just yet.
I know this is probably further off, but it would be good to have use of a logo and specific form of words to indicate the level of compatibility, some apps may struggle to meet all of the spec.
This particular app requires .NET 2.0 for example - hopefully that doesn't rule it out.
On OpenSource: I'd be happy to contribute (for what its worth) any c# code written specifically for fitting in with PortableApps, but the core project itself is unlikely to go OpenSource anytime soon, though I'm keeping my options open on this.
By the way, the BBC's weekly program Click [this might be UK access only] included a nice mention of PortableApps. I'm sorry to say that I hadn't really heard of PortableApps until now - though looking at the good web profile this project has, I'm not sure why.
Phil Fearon
is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/7194631.stm
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
Requiring dot net will make your application inherently non-portable. This has been oft discussed on these forums, the definitive take on this is on john's site.
That being said, following the guidelines for creating a portable application (other than removing .net dependencies) is probably not a bad thing, and there is an audience willing to live with that requirement, but you can't very well advertise something that depends on .net as portable, as it is portable to a very limited set of computers (those with the correct .net runtime installed).
Dependence on .net will certainly prevent you from being able to claim that your application is compliant with the PortableApps.com format.
.NET is kind of a deal breaker because not all PCs have .NET installed, but making the app otherwise portable would be great. If the users know .NET is installed on a particular machine, they can use your portable version to carry their personal settings between those PCs.
I'd say that you could advertise your app as PortableApps.com Format FRIENDLY, but not fully PortableApps.com Format COMPLIANT because of this .NET dependency.
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
Thanks all for the info and the link, I hadn't done all the research so I missed this rather significant deviation from the PortableApps format.
I've just about finished my code changes now, so I'll put this out as 'USB Friendly [requires .NET 2.0 on host machine]' or words to that effect and refrain from mentioning PortableApps directly.
I'll continue with PortableApps as a user of course, now that at last I've discovered it:-)
Phil Fearon