Vote for PortableApps.com in Lifehacker's Poll (Poll Closed After Cheating)

John T. Haller's picture
Submitted by John T. Haller on October 26, 2009 - 9:54pm

Lifehacker is doing a vote on the best portable app suites and we're happy to be in the lineup (thanks to our many awesome users who nominated us). And we'd love to have you show your support by voting for us in the poll!

Unfortunately, our competition contains illegal software (GPL, copyright, licensing, and trademark violations) and has stolen software from PortableApps.com (stripping off the GPL license, readme, source code, etc from our many portable application launchers and other open source utilities and attempting to pass them off as their own).

So please show your support for PortableApps.com by voting today: lifehacker portable software suite poll.

Thanks!

UPDATE (Oct 27): This morning, the competition cheated by using automated methods to place over 2,000 votes in under 2 hours (confirmed in their own forum). It wasn't unexpected given their past misdeeds (including violating the GPL and our copyrights) and how easy it is to cheat in PollDaddy polls, but it's sad, nonetheless.

Story Topic:

Comments

John:
I love the PortableApps applications and have beta'd some of them. More than happy to give you my vote and I encourage everyone else to do the same.

Darkbee's picture

Darkbee

October 27, 2009 - 8:35am

For what it's worth, I voted. Let's hope they don't count the results in Florida, there may well be some confusion.

It'd be really funny if, as somebody already pointed out, LiberKey got more public attention than they bargained for. Smile

John T. Haller's picture

John T. Haller

October 27, 2009 - 8:40am

Especially since they cheated in the poll itself by placing 2000 votes in under 2 hours just a couple hours ago. (PollDaddy polls are exceedingly easy to cheat on, there are automatic scripts to do it.) It kinda fits with the way they treat software licenses.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

Oh well, they might get some visibility, but I believe more in the overall quality of the PortableApps project.

And at least here the developers are caring about the developers right and their intellectual properties.

Just because of this, I think the PortableApps project has more chance to get some commercial applications available with time.

Tabarnaco

October 27, 2009 - 10:03am

I will never vote a service telling its users to promote it by insulting and villainifying its competitors, accusing them of cheating in order to turn its supporters against it. This is ridiculous.

John T. Haller's picture

John T. Haller

October 27, 2009 - 10:04am

If you read LiberKey's forums, you'll see them discussing it. I'm neither insulting nor vilifying them, I'm merely stating the facts of their activities they have engaged in, including violation my own and PortableApps.com's copyrights as well as the GPL.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

foxcole

October 27, 2009 - 10:41am

How is pointing out illegal activity an insult to anyone? That illegal activity spits in the faces of unsuspecting users, and is the highest form of insult to the developers and companies whose products were pirated. That is villainous behavior, so the shoe definitely fits. Shame on anyone who refuses to recognize the truth.

Cheers!
---Fox

computerfreaker's picture

computerfreaker

October 27, 2009 - 1:32pm

Read my comment further below, the accusations are true and have been proven by MaximumPC.com, an independent site.
IMHO, you owe John an apology.

"The question I would like to know, is the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything. All we know about it is that the Answer is Forty-two, which is a little aggravating."

horusofoz's picture

horusofoz

October 27, 2009 - 5:25pm

Don't get me wrong because I already accept what John has said but it would be good to read the MaximumPC.com article regarding this. Can you link to it?

EDIT: Just realised you had linked below. Thanks Smile

PortableApps.com Advocate

tgrantt's picture

tgrantt

October 27, 2009 - 11:48am

I voted for Portableapps.com, but can see the attraction of Portable Linux. I just find it easier to copy my apps directory onto multiple computers.

I am not my signature.

Tabarnaco

October 27, 2009 - 12:20pm

@John: Well I certainly can't find anything about copyright or terms of use on the site itself, and the About Us page clearly mentions that the platform is Open Source. In that case, how is using parts of the code and/or modifying it "illegal"? They aren't even selling it for profit, so where's the big deal? I assume you just don't like it because you don't like sharing the pie with another organization. LiberKey is different enough from PA.com so that it can be considered a whole different application, regardless of whether they "stole" parts of their code from anyone. Can you prove anything in the first place?

John T. Haller's picture

John T. Haller

October 27, 2009 - 12:50pm

An open source license allows you to use, modify and redistribute a copyrighted work that you normally would not be allowed to. We license our work under the GPL which requires that you distribute a copy of the license with the work, not misrepresent the origin, and provide the source to your users as required by the license for a period of no less than 3 years. And we're happy when others use our code (as many developers have used my code here to make other software portable) and abide by the license.

LiberKey has violated every aspect of that agreement with works copyrighted and GPLed by myself and other PortableApps.com developers as well as other open source projects on dozens of occasions. It's also made use of software and trademarks that they did not have the rights to (Mozilla Firefox, Opera, uTorrent, etc) without permission from the publishers or trademark-holders.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

Darkbee's picture

Darkbee

October 27, 2009 - 1:07pm

So if it can't be proven then it's perfectly acceptable to do? So if I can steal money from your bank account, possessions from your home, or your car and you can't prove it then it's totally fine for me to do that?

That sort of sounds like anarchy to me.

What a wonderful model for civilized society to live by! Smile

computerfreaker's picture

computerfreaker

October 27, 2009 - 1:30pm

For all those who don't seem to realize what "copyright violation" is, and who toss idiotic accusations at John (!!!!!!!), read this and weep.
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/columns/murphys_law_liberkey_gpl_violat...

Here are some direct quotes from page 2 of that article:

MaximumPC.comAs far as open-source software goes, however, LiberKey is in the wrong and does indeed violate provisions of software licenses. I won't get into the specifics of each potential license (we could be here all day). Suffice, its blanket treatment of all open-source licenses using the four aforementioned points is incorrect when it comes to software that's been licensed under the GPL 2.0. Yes, the GPL 3.0 is the latest version of the license. But that doesn't automatically upgrade GPL 2.0-licensed software with additional rights and permissions.

Why is that important? Because the GPL 2.0 does not allow for linking to source code over the Web to satisfy the requirement of source code availability. When distributing a piece of open-source software licensed under the GPL 2.0, an entity must one of the following criteria:

* Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
* Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
* Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

LiberKey is incorrect in assuming that its inclusion of links to hosted versions of the code satisfies the requirements of the older GPL 2.0 license. It doesn't. LiberKey is violating the license of software like KeePass and the VLC Media Player, amongst others.

MaximumPC.comHere's the deal. Although you might have the legal right to distribute a piece of freeware or open-source software based on the license, you still have to abide by the rules for a company's registered trademarks and logos. You can distribute the unmodified executables and code all you want, but you might still have to seek permission to use a company's trademarked names when referring to the software.

In the case of Firefox, for example, a user can distribute an unchanged version of the installation application and refer to it using Mozilla's trademarked titles without seeking permission from the company. But are LiberKey's changes--packaging the unmodified installation executable into a larger installation program--considered a modification? Typically, the word "modification" relates to the source code or unpacked files from an installation program: Change the default favorites in Firefox, and you won't be able to actually call the package Firefox without seeking permission, for example. I contacted Mozilla for clarification on situations like these, but they elected not to comment.

OpenOffice.org did get back to me, however, and suggested that the combination of an installer application and an unchanged OpenOffice.org installation executable would be acceptable as a matter of licensing. The trademark issue still stands--a distributor would need to seek permission from OpenOffice.org to use the title and accompanying logos.

Has LiberKey extended the arm for these permissions? It doesn't really matter: Even if they have, the developers are in violation. Tossing aside the questions of installers and modifications, LiberKey abuses Mozilla's trademarks by calling its version of the application "Firefox Portable." Mozilla explicitly states that use of its trademarks must be done, "in their exact form -- neither abbreviated nor combined with any other word or words." Similarly, the size of the depicted on-screen logo--16 pixels by 16 pixels--runs below the Mozilla's minimum guidelines of 40 pixels tall.

Let's just assume for a second that LiberKey has indeed contacted Mozilla--much like John Haller himself did--and secured permission to title an portable version of Firefox, "Firefox Portable." The same issue crops up again for OpenOffice.org. The trademark, as LiberKey displays it, is just plain wrong: "OpenOffice (OOo) Portable" instead of "OpenOffice.org" or, assuming permission was granted for a portable version, "OpenOffice.org Portable." There is absolutely no reason why OpenOffice.org would allow a company to shorten its trademarked name. As for the accompanying logo LiberKey uses on OpenOffice (OOo) Portable's description page, I can't find it in any of the image archives that OpenOffice.org has released for (permission-backed) use.

In short: LiberKey's modified software might not be such a big deal, but the trademarking provisions are. And even if LiberKey has obtained permission to use trademarks--which it has offered no proof or suggestion of doing--it's still using some trademarks incorrectly.

MaximumPC.comThe facts remain the facts: LiberKey violates the GPL 2.0 license and incorrectly uses trademarks and logos, permission or not. A numbre of LiberKey's issues could be cleared off the table if the permissions its allegedly been granted ever saw the light of day. The company refuses to do so. That single sentence says almost as much as the 2,000+ words preceding it.

There it is, in black and white, from an independent source: LiberKey is in the wrong, completely & totally. Now give John some support, or at the very least some peace.

"The question I would like to know, is the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything. All we know about it is that the Answer is Forty-two, which is a little aggravating."

John T. Haller's picture

John T. Haller

October 27, 2009 - 1:03pm

As expected, the 2000+ fraudulent votes placed in the 2 hour window this morning that doubled LiberKey's vote count from the previous 44 hours 'won' them the poll. I would be willing to bet that all people will remember is the cheating they had to do to win it.

I want to thank the folks here who voted. And to thank folks for keeping honest and not also engaging in cheating and dishonesty.

I've contacted PollDaddy to try and get the results with the fraudulent votes filtered out. If we find out anything, I'll post it.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

computerfreaker's picture

computerfreaker

October 27, 2009 - 1:24pm

According to the poll results, LiberKey only "won" by 100 votes or so... if you can get even 150 of the illegal votes removed, PA.c will take its rightful place as #1.
(If you can get all of the illegal votes removed, LiberKey's going to sink like a rock, which has been a long time in coming but is richly deserved)

"The question I would like to know, is the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything. All we know about it is that the Answer is Forty-two, which is a little aggravating."