I made a stickies portable launcher and used the portable apps installer. I was told the the installer could only be used for open source apps. I'm a little confused because in the launcher code it says:
;EXCEPTION: Can be used with non-GPL apps distributed by PortableApps.com
Can someone clarify for me what the exact rule is. Because SpeQ portable is freeware and also uses the portable apps installer but nobody corrected that. I'm a little confused would somebody clarify this for me.
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
Means only for non-GPL apps distributed by PortableApps.com. I assume this is because the trademarks used within the installer (like the installer image, and PortableApps.com references).
Maybe if you would remove all these Trademarks it may be allowed to use it also for non-GPL distributed by others than PortableApps.com. Please note that any problems with third parties will not be supported by PortableApps.com
That still doesnt explain why SpeQ portable wasnt corrected for the issue though..
Maybe it's because the SpeQ Portable Dev Test doesn't include SpeQ, it just automatically downloads it for the user.
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
I was trying to do the same with SMPlayer, but it kinda backfired
Insert original signature here with Greasemonkey Script.
I had removed all evidence of portable apps on the uninstaller. (Maybe John didn't know that) Whereas SpeQ still had everything on it including the portable apps installer logo thingy. For everyone reading please understand I'm not yelling at John and I'm not angry just asking for some light on a dark subject. I have no problem with the ruling whatever it is.
Release Team Member
Is not necessarily a good thing. You're kinda hiding the fact that it's John's installer, although I know that wasn't the intention.
However:
I know SpeQ is freeware, but this installer automatically downloads the SpeQ files
So, that may be alright to add in the code to download a freeware application, or John may have a problem with it. You packaged Stickies right in the installer. We'll see...
"Is not necessarily a good thing."
Well I dont think it's hiding anything. For one I assume John's copyright is included in the installer script. Second: PortableApps.com and Your Digital Life are John;s trademarks. Leaving those in place is not correct. Also let's say the original developer likes the portable version and wants to host it, it's obvious that should not be a problem, but having the installer have PortableApps trademarks and copyrighted images would not be okay. If the original developer of the software allows to make a portable version, everybody should be happy.
I assume John doesn't want any third party to fit it's installer with PortableApps images and trademarked texts for the simple reason to differentiate between official and third party apps.
Official freeware support is coming, that means an official installer (with official LOGO and TRADEMARKS I think) which means PortableApps will exclusively host the freeware. Until then, I think we should encourage all developers to prepare also freeware apps. When the Freeware support arrives they have a tried and tested application ready to go. Then the only thing is to wrap it into an official Installer.
But for now I think if the installer doesn't look like an official PortableApps.com release, there's really nothing wrong with it. Why else the installer and launcher scripts are 'open sourced' under GPL if every time someone uses the GLP-ed script would not be allowed to do so. The only valid reason people would not be allowed to use it is because it contains the trademarks and copyrighted material. And like FireFox, removing the trademarked graphics and content should be enough for any third party to use it, whether freeware support by PortableApps.com is coming or not.
So I have the authors permission and if he agrees to host it can I use the launcher? Provided I don't use Portable Apps trade marks and I make reference to where I got the code? A final word would be appreciated.
Release Team Member
The installer code can be used for non-GPLed apps that are being release by PortableApps.com. If you're using it for something else and stripping the trademarks, you can only use it for GPLed software. No freeware or commercial software. Taking GPLed code (like the PortableApps.com Installer) and combining it with closed source stuff without permission from the copyright holder is illegal.
This is only temporary until I get the PA installer maker published which will no longer require code to be included with the apps or any code to be written and edited by devs.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
And is willing allow us to promote can the launcher be used? Or do I need to make my own until freeware can be hosted here? If I can how do I need to construct the launcher to make it okay?
Release Team Member
Well, John, as I see it you like to keep other people from supporting the PortableApps.com platform untill you come up with a solution.
As I see it, NSIS is released under Zlib license....
Anyway, it's good to know you are trying to 'solve' this issue, as you apparently would not allow any software not published by Portable Apps to use your script, even if it's Open Source. So bundling with 'copyrighted' software is not allowed. And there will be a PortableApps.com installer maker published. This is great to hear.
But 'will no longer require code to be included with the apps or any code to be written and edited by devs' is meaning you take the installer and maybe even the launcher out of the GPL?
This will also mean developers cannot make their own modifications to it to, for example, support other portable platforms now and in the future, or add special things to it?
For the Installer and Launcher I still feel there should be an alternative to be used by anyone as they see fit. Making a generic script for general use so people don't have a lock-in into the PortableApps.com.
I understand your protective attitude toward PortableApps.com platform, but it also seems like you are 'cornering the market'.
I already made an original Launcher just for this reason. Do I really have to throw away a modified Installer based on yours and start from scratch? i guess reading from your reaction I very well am forced to, even if my installer script is only just that, an installer script. I guess I have to write a custom installer with a function to check where PortableApps.com is installed.
If only the installer scripts were released into public domain or even zlib license (Like NSIS, there would be no problem like this)
Are you moving PortableApps away from being an open standard and moving toward a closed source installer and launcher?
I hope you at least understand my feeling, i can not make an application and use a proven installer to support compatibility with the PortableApps.com format.
Best of luck with your PortableApps.com Installer Creator!