I was just thinking that there are some open source apps out there that we still can't release because they have a dumb license. Then I thought well John has to get permission from Mozilla on their apps, so why can't we do that for other apps too? I don't know if that would involve just John making the contacts or perhaps a permission template being made that we can modify and email to the authors or whatever, but there are some apps like openworkbench, qemu, etc that we can't do that i would like to put on this site. qemu in my mind is a very important one, because it not only adds a portable virtual machine launcher but it also lets us use the entire open source world of linux. for the os section we could have Puppy linux, DSL Linux and even Ubuntu that all run from a usb stick and can be posted as a complete PAF package; we could even change anything we wanted in the os'es like the wallpaper and theme to be customized for us.
Also, I always here that freeware apps are "coming" but never anything more than that. i was just wondering what has been done. what companies have agreed to let us do their apps? etc.
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
In regards to qemu, Steve Lamerton is recompiling it for PortableApps.com using a fully open-source sound library, redistribution will be fine then.
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
I'm not sure that QEMU can be on SF.net, but then again, doesn't the LGPL license allow you to include closed source libraryies? Maybe that's how they managed to let it slide...
Insert original signature here with Greasemonkey Script.
It can be with the closed source sound library removed. Anyone hosting it with the library in it is violating SourceForge's Terms of Service.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Some we can do, like QEMU. It wasn't a permission issue, it was a hosting one. It uses a closed source component for sound (the Windows version only, which is what we need), but Steve has recompiled it without that component, so we're going to be doing some things with it.
Others have semi-open licenses, so we can repackage them... but they're not OSI approved, so they don't qualify as true open source. Essentially, they're permissive freeware with source available. But we can't host them on SourceForge, Google Code, etc.
For other freeware there are two issues: licensing and hosting. We need permission to repackage them. I have permission from some surprising firms. But I can't discuss that publicly (non-disclosure agreements and such). Others we've discussed in the forums, like Smithtech's permission to repackage a couple freeware image viewers.
The bigger stumbling block is hosting. Hosting gets expensive when you're talking the kind of bandwidth sucked up by software downloads. We're pushing over 1TB a day out of SourceForge in terms of bandwidth at the moment. And some of the freeware will be close to as popular as some of our best open source packages, so it's gonna get costly. I was hoping to wait for some of the hardware partnerships to finalize, but we may go ahead early and ask for donations.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
ok, yeah i didn't even think of cost as an issue. that's a good point that Sourceforge won't host any freeware apps we do, but what about other sites like Majorgeeks.com, Download.com, or Softpedia? many freeware apps don't have any hosting of their own and do their hosting through these sites; i would think we could do the same.
Download.com is the most reliable, but their free offerings can take up to 36 business days to update (you upload a file and it can take up to nearly 2 months to show up). The paid options are around $99 per month per app for 1 day response and $9 per month per app for 20 business day (1 month) response.
I've been mapping out virtual dedicated and dedicated servers at other locations that offer 10mbps and 100mbps connections.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
i would try MajorGeeks.com. that's my favorite DL site and they update their servers with every app update constantly and i don't think they're even asked to host the files, they just have a collection of cool apps and they have everything mirrored on 4 or 5 servers. Who knows, mby they would even let use have a portableapps section on their site.
Can you give us some guidelines for what we might do that would not interfere with your plans? Like if a bunch of impatient folks started putting PAF-formatted freeware on MajorGeeks or some other site (without your trademarked names and such), would that be helpful or hurtful?
MC
well i doubt that site in particular would let any of us put random apps on it; they would have to be official apps to go on that site.
I agree, that's a good question. John, if you'd rather us not do something, don't ignore it until you have a solution, do tell us whether or not it's a good idea until then.
I'm working out the details and shopping around at the moment. I should have it up this month. And it will be funded by donations, advertising and partnerships.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Hosting costs are a big problem in today's software distribution. Maybe some people could do some serious research in free and professional free software hosting. Besides OSI there is also Free Software, which is pretty similar to OSI. I'm sure they would have come central way of hosting.
That SourceForge.net and GoogleCode is limited to one brand of open software seems a bit discriminating. Maybe they get money from OSI or something, I don't know.
I think it's a good bet to try and get individual 'freeware' and open software projects to support the Portable Application format and host the portable versions themselves. And maybe they make the Portable version standard for their application.
This will mean many more individual developers will need to support Portable Software format but it might be a good way. I think that's better than having to host all these applications yourself or having individuals from the community host them.
But to explain the portable format and why it is preferred like that should be available in a clear and short informative document to convince people to make their apps portable. To often 'portable' is confused with 'mobile' and 'multi platform'.
I hope a solution can be found that does not require hosting of the apps by an individual depending on donations and payment.
OSI isn't one brand, it's many different licenses by many different entities used by hundreds thousands of organizations and projects. OSI was founded to keep the concept of open source from becoming meaningless (as organizations like Microsoft are attempting to do with their un-open or very similar yet purposely incompatible licenses).
What we're discussing here is freeware. (free with a small F) It isn't open source, so modifying it, repackaging it and distributing it is much more complicated and typically involves getting permission from every publisher for every piece of software. SourceForge and Google Code are devoted to open source software (Free with a capital F).
As for hosting the freeware, it will essentially involve hosting based on revenue from advertisers and partnerships.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Besides OSI theres another one I thought. Wasn't it called "Free Software Foundation" (1985)?
Freeware hosting could be possible by the people who make the freeware apps. I admit it's lots of work though, contacting everybody. But turn it around, instead of you asking their permission, ask them to make a portable software themselves. It would raise awareness of portable software. Okay, the 'disadvantage' is the software would not have the copyrighted and trademarked splash screen, but I think it's a valid thing to consider.
About the hosting, I was just trying to suggest alternatives to your ideas. Maybe not ideal but surely worth to be considered.