Hi John,
I understand the concern about licenses, copyright and trade marks and so you should. Bus I have a few remarks on this regard:
1. First how do you know in general that people did not ask permission from Mozilla and got it? In fact, how do we know you got the permission to redistribute FireFox while others have not? Would it be impossible for individuals to obtain permission while companies are more likely to obtain permission? Is there a way to check who has permission or not?
2. Second; Many open source apps use Inno Setup because it's free for all use (even commercial) and the source is available. Maybe the license is not OSI approved, but it's less restrictive than say GPL. I heard no-one ever complain about that being illegal because perhaps they see (like I do) an installer just a way to deploy an application. It's like an self extracting zip in a way... And on the other site, NSIS is being used for the commercial version of WinAmp. Could we therefor demand that the commercial version should all be GPL-ed too?
3. I agree with you that repackaging freeware or using a non licensed version of a tool to repack it is not allowed, however you suggest that most of the things you encounter online (especially the mentioned site) use somehow illegal usage of software. Doesn't that give the wrong impression for people who did buy a license and do have permission?
4. And concerning to software which is free and has the source available and the developers allow redistribution and modification, yet their license is not OSI approved for whatever reason. Why does it make me feel OSI is having a monopoly kind of position and might go beyond the intention of free software with source available. (As many people maybe falsely claim to be 'open source' software. I'm aware OSI sorta claimed the 'Open Source' term but to most people 'open source' just means free software with open source available and you have permission to modify or re-distribute.
5. And something slightly off topic and unrelated issue maybe, but is the use of copyrights and trademarked names and graphics like Mozilla does, just the means to lay some sort of legal claim onto the GPL software (maybe for financial gain also)? I mean, I sometimes get the feeling it goes beyond the "not to be confused with the original software distribution". I do understand it's important to protect Trademarks, and usually they are used correct and to protect the Open Source project. But sometimes it might seems its a legal means to put some sort of claim onto the software and make it more cumbersome and seems to discourage people to participate in its development or making custom versions, etc. Is adding a splash screen to Portable applications pure a technical thing (to show people the app is loading) and an indication that they run a portable versions, or is there some legal claim to because the splash and setup screens contain Trademarked and copyrighted material?
6. I don't think a GPL menu would mean is not allowed to actively support Freeware and non OSI approved open sourced as the menu and applications are different entities. Else it would not be allowed to use GPL on windows at all I guess.
7 More off-topic: Did I get the impression that you were in the process to add more devs for portable apps and they needed to sign some sort of contract or permission with you in order for you to allow them to help the PAM project? Isn't that totally weird?
Sorry for these complex questions but sometimes the copyright/trademark laws and the licenses used, and maybe this is not the right spot to ask them. But I have seen several posts that give the impression that most of the online software is breaching some kind of license, copyright, trademark and/or permission issue. Does this also is the reason that PAM has only one developer? A bigger number of active developers on the menu is good for PAM as software development is concerned.
I respect your work on a Portable environment and making it open source for all to participate but please make sure beyond all rules and regulations that the project can grow. People have more confidence in projects with bigger number of developers (which means faster development and more releases). Also don't fall in the trap of obsessive trying to keep the version numbers incrementing to sow as that again seems to many people an immature application. (Remember projects running for 6 years and still have no v1.0). It seems that your planned v1.6 PAM has so many changes that it would be no problem to not make it a 2.0!
Please allow more developers to work on the official PAM so that it doesn't all come down to you. Then you can test changes and release it and you keep to do the digital signing making the release final. Then the developers can take it over again by posting the Apps new versions.
Good luck with your PAM project and hopefully it can grow bigger and better a bit faster. Keep up the fantastic work and don't see this post as criticism but more confusion and ignorance on my part. You done a great job already. Lead the way!
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
LOGAN, i know i'm not John, but most of this has been addressed, and your information is incomplete, and somewhat misinterpreted in some cases.
1. It is possible that individuals did get permission, John never said explicitly that it was impossible for that to happen, he simply said it would be illegal to redistribute unless they had permission. And we can know he has it because Mozilla hasn't come after him to shut his project down or change the name. (With a big name project like PortableApps.com, I'm sure they know it exists. And, he's been in discussions with their developers about several issues that have popped up [look in the mozilla forums and John will have posts there])
2. NSIS can be used for ANYTHING, there is no restriction to use GPL-only applications. John's installer specifically, not NSIS in general, is CURRENTLY limited to GPL only, he has said numerous times that he's working on a "GPL-with-modifications" to allow his scripts to be used with any license.
3. Most of the other portable apps out there (Windows Live Messenger, MS Office, other similar products) are illegally repackaged. They redistribute the entire application, not just a launcher for it. If somebody legally owns an application, and they make a launcher for their own personal use, or they redistribute ONLY the launcher, it's perfectly fine.
4. I think the OSI-approved restriction is because hosting is done through sourceforge. Again, John has said multiple times that he's working on the legal issues to open up support for freeware and commercial apps, and have those hosted elsewhere.
5. What financial gain is there to be had from FREE software? A Trademark is owned by a company, they attached it their name and logo, it in no way prohibits people to develop the project, use the source code, use the application itself, it doesnt serve as a money making tool. Very clearly and simply stated, at least with the Mozilla apps, you can do nearly anything you wish with their code, as long as you remove their name and logos from it, or have their permission to use it (they do that because they don't want their company to become associated with a flawed product). It is a legal means of putting claim to a software, but how is that cumbersome? A splash screen is used to say "hey, the app is loading" and also to display that the app is an official PortableApps.com version, which signifies that it's integrity can be trusted. To sum it all up, legal claims are there, not to be a burden, but for protection, they aren't money making tools in the situations mentioned above, and just because the logo can't be redistributed without permission, doesn't mean the app has truly closed standards, it means the owner of that logo wants to protect the reputation of thier company/product.
6. NOWHERE does it say that because the menu is GPL it can't be used with closed source apps. The freeware/non-OSI issue is that it can't be redistributed on sourceforge.
7. How did you get the impression that devs have to sign a contract? If you wrote an app, post it in beta testing, no contracts required. The only mention of signing anything is that John puts a digital signature into all official projects, to verify their integrity. This signature is owned by PortableApps.com, and John is the only one that uses it.
He does have other devs working on the menu with him. He invited many devs with their own PAM mod/clone to come on board and work on a more full-featured menu.
The project is growing, look at all the newer posts in beta testing, lots of people are making their own apps (I made 3, had to take 1 down for the time being because it used a closed-source component). Most of these apps will become official in time, but they need to be tested to verify that they work properly, then John has to verify that everything is accurate (no mis-types, no accidental references to other apps [forgot to change a readme, or things like that]), then apply his digital signature, upload the official version to SourceForge, then write a post about it. It takes time. He's doing all of that, plus behind the scenes legal work, and working on updating the menu, and finalizing the PAF specifications, and finally getting around to a newsletter too.
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
Just about all of these have been addressed multiple times, but here they are again for you...
1. I know for a fact that most (if not all) of the other repackagings of Mozilla apps aren't approved because they are making changes Mozilla has specifically told me could not be approved even if money were changing hands. The portable versions of Mozilla software at PortableApps.com are the end result of months of negotiation, technical discussions with Mozilla developers, input from the marketing department and legal department, etc.
2. NSIS itself is under a BSD license which allows it to be used with software under an OSI license, freeware license or commercial license. GPL licensed code can be packaged in a BSD licensed installer like NSIS without issue. Packaging GPLed code into a proprietary binary is not permitted under the GPL and is, thus, a copyright violation. I got this information directly from the Free Software Foundation which is the organization responsible for the GPL.
3. Just because someone has bought the license for a piece of freeware does not give them permission to redistribute a modified version of that software. The site you are referring to may, in fact, have a license for the packaging tool. But I'm quite sure they don't have permission from Google to repackage, say, Picasa. I'm sure they haven't given it much thought since they're openly violating the GPL.
4. OSI is essentially the de facto list of licenses that are open source. Unless it is OSI approved, it can't be hosted on SourceForge, Google Code, etc. Other licenses that license source code are usually more akin to the shared source initiative from Microsoft. Most non-OSI licenses actually withhold permission to modify and redistribute, combine it with other source or sell it... all of which are essential components to 'open' source.
5. Trademarks are a way for a business or individual to protect an identity. Mozilla, Firefox, mySQL, Apache, Linux, Debian, Ubuntu... these are all trademarked names. No one except the trademark owner is allowed to use them on products without the trademark-holder's permission. It's a way for them to protect their name even though their software is open source. Others are free to create their own versions or forks of their software (as all open source software works), they just can't trade on the name that the companies own and have worked hard to promote and brand. This is why the fork of Firefox for Debian is called Iceweasel. It's still based on Mozilla's open code, they just can't call it Firefox. Ubuntu, on the other hand, worked with Mozilla within their guidelines to keep the version of Firefox within Ubuntu branded as Firefox.
6. Of course any software can be launched from the PortableApps.com Menu. I've advised several closed source vendors on making their wares compatible with the platform.
7. Yes, we're adding developers. Several developers are already contributing apps and we're in the process of making them 'official'. Unlike individually-released apps, we're working to ensure that all the apps here are supported in an ongoing basis. As for the platform code and a contract, that is correct. Like many open source projects (like OpenOffice.org, for instance), we'll be using a joint copyright assignment. This will allow us to be able to link the menu code to closed source binaries on an ongoing basis. We're working with several flash drive manufacturers that produce advanced keys with encryption chips, fingerprint readers, etc. They'd like to be able to incorporate some of those features into the PortableApps.com Platform, but they're unwilling (or unable to due to licensing in most instances) open the code up. So, we provide them the ability to do so while still making the platform open source under the GPL. It's a win win.
Much of what's been going on is the result of ensuring the longterm viability, sustainability, legality, and other-ities or the project. It's been a very long road, but we're getting there. We're essentially competing against large multi-million dollar entities with closed source platforms that would *love* to become the de facto standard and lock everybody into buying their stuff longterm, so we have our work cut out for us.
No worries on the misinterpretation as criticism. It's important to have an open discussion about all this stuff so everyone is on the same page.
Regards,
John
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Thanks for the detailed answers. I know you answered many of these before but not as elaborated as your post above. It's much appriciated!
I'm thinking this kind of information could be useful in a FAQ page to help users gain a little more insight in several issues concerning Portable Apps platform.
Let's hope that the PortableApps platform gets rolling very soon and that the sources will be put into SVN on sourceforge. It would tie the modifications closer to the official development and features could be merged back into the main PAM. I hope you make the new PAM also into an "for advanced users" so that the logical choise will be that the main app has the most features, and is usable to new users as well without any problem.
As you are aware of, some people make many great skins for Portable Apps. They are doing a fantastic job and should be fully endorsed by PortableApps.com. I'm talking about PAM Theme Central ( http://ptc.kain-planet.de/ ) and I feel they deserve an integral link from PortableApps.com. I only hope they will also make an SourceForge account for it to ensure it will be available for future generations though. But I'm sure you will agree with me that these skins look fantastic and are a great way to customize (y)our PAM menus.
I would also like to invite you to promote the #PortableApps IRC channel on PortableApps.com. This is a place where users meet on IRC for help, discussion and chitchat. Maybe you want to visit it someday yourself. It's a great additional community initiative and a great extension beyond the forums. You're welcome to visit, there are most of the time a few people around. It's not required you start helping newbies with issues there, but would be cool to see you there someday.
I'm really exited about the possibility to support several hardware features. I myself have a ADATA FP1 (With fingerprint security). I have put the PortableApps on it that now auto starts after I entered my password or fingerprint. This could be done by simply renaming their default portable menu and adding 2 launchers, one that launches PortableApps menu and one that links the menu back to the original menu which included the settings among others. The only drawbacks of this and other protected thumb drive is that it needs Administrator rights although they told me they were working on one that doesn't need that. They now released the FP2 but I don't know if they solved the Admin issue. Another drawback to their technique (and virtually all other fingerprint protected thumb drives including the one by Sony) is that they try to hide the automatically installed software through a technique that is very similar to the infamous root kit. (This will hide the folder from the system thus actually generating a potential security vulnerability.) AVG pops up when inserting the drive. I think most of those thumb drives used some licensed technology.
Again thanks for your reply.