I have read on various places questions about other portable sites (plagiarist) but every time, there is the info - the link has been removed. So much for the information.
I was browsing the web for a portable version of Unlocker (it is not open source software) and arrived there [link to illegal site removed by mod JTH]. I believe this is one of the plagiarist sites related on some other threads, since the logo really is a copy, etc.
Nevertheless, for my information, i would rather know theses links (Edit: not related, but REPORTED) on portableapps.com forum, than reading a message - the link has been removed.
What do you think?
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
Well, when that link gets removed I guess you'll have your answer. Those are not "competitors" they are warez dealers. What they are doing is illegal in many ways. First, they host illegally cracked versions of applications that they can't legally host even an un-cracked version for. Second, many of their apps are what is known as "thinstallers" which are also illegal to redistribute, unless they have paid a large ($10,000 I believe) licensing fee to do so, which, considering that they take a moral stand against charging for warez (ironically enough), I can't see how they would have come up with those kind of funds, much less bothered to spend that much to appease their consciences in releasing their illegal software. Third, they violate trademarks by using the PortableApps themes and logos without permission, in order to appear legitimate and related to this site. THEY ARE NOT RELATED TO PORTABLEAPPS.COM IN ANY WAY. John has worked hard to build this site's reputation as a legitimate software vendor, and as such has cut this site off from "them" in every way possible so as not to tarnish this site and himself. By posting links such as the one you have, you only serve to give more attention to them. Please remove your link, or else a mod will, just like they have to all of the others. Those are not "competitors", they are illegal warez dealers feeding off of this site's reputation to bolster their own.
Quamquam omniam nescio, nec nihil scio.
Competitor or illegal, but whatever. Obviously I do not advertise, I am looking for information. I would rather see the links with a warning - Illegal site (from site admin/mood) - than "link removed". I guess most of the people on the board is mature enough to make a wise choice. Censorship - in my way - has less impact than objective information. Or, why not a thread with a listing of those sites? What the benefit from open source software/open source software supporters to become as protective as M$ and consort. You can't avoid the unavoidable. I would even say that plagiarism is a good sign, since it attest one's popularity (my personal opinion, of course).
PS: qwertymodo I have edited my first post, thanks.
From my point of view... If you support that, then you should also support the guy standing in the corner selling drugs... both are illegal stuff... maybe you don't care about both things (I don't care either) but this site should protect itself from promoting such illegal stuff and avoid the promotion of such sites... _Specially_ avoid spammers.
And about real "competitors" such as U3, well, they have their own sites, users interested in information should go there, which in fact is the primary source of information about those technologies so it must be preferred...
And I know that they prefer this forum just because PortableApps.com, our forum and our people is cooler...
If a packet hits a pocket on a socket on a port,
and the bus is interrupted as a very last resort,
and the address of the memory makes your floppy disk abort,
then the socket packet pocket has an error to report
The point is that linking to another site reflects on this site, regardless of any disclaimers we may put on the links. And in this case, imitation is NOT the sincerest form of flattery, as they are using the good name of this site to promote themselves as if they are somehow related here. They are feeding off of this site's reputation for illicit purposes. It's not about popularity. John is currently working on brokering deals with large flash drive companies to actually release PortableApps on flash drives sold commercially out-of-box (I'm not exactly sure what the deals entail, but this is what I seem to remember). This is a TRUE testament to this site's popularity, but also to it's hard-line stand on taking the high road and doing things right and legally. Also, when people have questions about that particular site in question, they are given an answer but also their links are removed. This is not the place to discuss illegal software, no matter the intent. If you really just want an answer, find a more discreet way of referring to the site, not a direct link. As it has been mentioned before, the site you linked to has been nicknamed portablecrapz at blahspot hereabouts. I've also seen people ask "hey is this site legit, go ahead and remove the link if it isn't" and they got a quick response with less frustration. Just realize you are not the first person to reference the "other" site, and some people here have just started getting frustrated answering the same question over and over. I'll admit my first thought when reading your post was "oh boy, this again... :(" so I apologize if I came off a bit harsh.
Quamquam omniam nescio, nec nihil scio.
Now I understand why I never received an answer when, a week ago, I wrote a mail to John reporting the illegal site...
But if the link is removed, How do I know the site was already reported?
If a packet hits a pocket on a socket on a port,
and the bus is interrupted as a very last resort,
and the address of the memory makes your floppy disk abort,
then the socket packet pocket has an error to report
Now I understand why I never received an answer when, a week ago, I wrote a mail to John reporting the illegal site...
Also, John is busy and sometimes it takes awhile to get a response *cough* twomonthsandstillwaiting
Quamquam omniam nescio, nec nihil scio.
There's a lot of portable software on the Net, actually. If you search a certain popular torrent indexing site for "portable", you may find a torrent with hundreds of portable programs. Then there's the site we've affectionately coined Portablecrapz Blahspot that you linked. All that all this proves is that any bonehead can make an app portable. Meanwhile, PortableApps.com proves that it takes a lot more to do it legally and correctly.
I agree that censorship is dumb, but I don't disagree with the extent of which PortableApps.com does it. They have a reputation and an image to uphold, and warez links don't help them at all. There was one site whose owner was promoting something from it, and JTH pointed out that they were violating a license with Mozilla, and the mods were aggressively keeping the link down (the guy kept re-posting it, I think). Anyway, I just Google'd it. Didn't take long to find it at all. So the censorship is not total, they're just taking down links. Nothing stops you from calling up your old friend Google and getting at it that way. PA isn't blocking access (and they can't), they're just discouraging it.
By being legitimate, PA has a tough road. The site you linked puts out well over 50 releases a month. (I know, I watch it.) I'd say about half of it is warez, the other half is free stuff, but I doubt any of the free stuff is shared legitimately. Pretty sure it isn't. The Thinstall (*puts a quarter in the swear jar*) accusation may be out of date, however; they seem to have moved to NSIS installers. So yeah, it's easy to slam out 50 releases a month, if you're going for quantity over quality and you don't care about breaking a few laws which are almost never enforced. Google is hosting his site and they don't seem to mind, but Google used to be a better friend to open source than it currently is, too (not that I like them any less, but they could care more about this).
Here's the thing: Portable is one of "the next big things". On one side you have PortableApps.com, who are trying to do it "right". Then you have the warez monkeys who don't care, and sites like Portable Freeware who will tell you how to do it, but won't directly help you violate copyrights (and by all accounts are legitimate, nothing against PF). Like anything else you can get into, it just depends on how you want to play it, and what rules you're willing to follow. Me, I care more than some and less than others.
NathanJ79 I totally agree with your answer content. That's the reason I am here - portableapps.com and forum. I was just pointing out that reading bad links or bad links reports would be more helpful - at least for me - than reading "link removed" and wondering what website it was about. Sure enough, if I am looking for something particular, I can search for it, but that's not the question. I moved to portable application recently. One of the reason was the 'branding recognition' portableapps.com gives users (event though I do not use exclusively open source portable apps). I like the project. I am also glad to have TB and OO (portable) as alternative to M$. Keep in mind I am a user, and I want to enjoy my experience. I understand a site admin may have a different consideration. Anyway, I am glad to see most of the people on this board are communicative. I hope in the future, close source software writers will adhere to the portableapps format and offer on their download page a *paf* version, and turn it into a standard.
Regards.
Sure it would, but like I said, I care more than some and less than others. One I care less than is JTH himself. He's a huge advocate of open source and he's built this site and the PAF format around that. And he got exclusive or semi-exclusive permission from Mozilla to alter Firefox and still keep the name and logo. And he runs this site, so links to warez sites and sites that violate the licenses of Mozilla and others would be highly offensive to him, I suppose, again, because he cares about all that stuff a heck of a lot more than I do. And it's his site, so we pretty much have to respect that. The alternative is simply to go elsewhere, because on a forum you pretty much can't coexist with the staff if you disagree with them on their fundamental issues. That site you linked to does have a forum. It's not as active as this one, but the site itself gets more app updates. So I suppose it balances out.
Exactly. Say Mozilla put out an important upgrade to Firefox - 3.5.1 - which fixed some critical bug. Purely hypothetical situation. The site you linked gets the update out an hour or so after Mozilla releases the update. They're fast, gotta give 'em that. Maybe an hour's an exaggeration, maybe it isn't. Anyway, couple days go by and this site hasn't got the update. Me, I might consider using the one from the other site, because, as you say, a user wants to enjoy their experience. And, as I say, I care a fair bit less about certain things than others, and would put the safety of my flash drive and the PC I'm using (which isn't even mine) over a license consideration, if it came to that. And to be honest, that's all well and good for an end-user, but at the same time, one must be mindful of the fact that a site admin trying to run a legitimate site, and do business in the real world, cannot freely allow discussion of illegal software. There's no telling what he may use on his personal computer (not to accuse, but it's in the same vein as Bill Gates having tried Firefox, I suppose, though not really) but as an admin, his public voice carries more weight, and all of these add up to why I agree with censoring illegal links.
Did I repeat myself? I may have typed more than I intended...
The tag 'cite' is looking good, I will use it next time
You made you point.
and by the way, the "Keep in mind I am a user, and I want to enjoy my experience" I did not mean to look for the quicker solution to get my update, but not to give to much weight (or consideration) about censorship, links removal and playing cop (or cat and mouse?) on a board I use in a casual manner. Nothing more.
some of the texts around on the well known appz site.
There you will then find out, that while most of the software authors probably do not waist resources on arguing with that guy, some of them do take legal steps and so it comes that some apps will be published and removed within days when the operator receives appropriate legal writing I suppose. Also the site was moving time to time, not all providers seem to like hosting of such sites.
Once links to such sites are printed on otherwise clean site, it well happen that one of those authors who like to fight with the appz owner will start having fun on fighting with all who include links to it.
From that point, I understand very much that owner of this site does not want risk any such dispute and tries to have all such thing removed. It is not just about preventing someone to use it, but one should also consider that someone tries to protect his own site and business and reputation.
Otto Sykora
Basel, Switzerland
The site you linked to hosts warez/cracked software, rips off our trademarks, violates open source licenses and trademarks and steals other software to make their packages. It may not be linked to here.
We don't permit linking to illegal software sites. The one you linked to is blatantly illegal and obvious to most end users. There are a couple other sites out there, though, that appear legit but, in fact, have stolen code from us, violated open source licenses and violated trademarks and EULAs. Those may not be linked from here either.
It's mostly about staying legal (we don't want people linking to illegal stuff from here as it reflects on us as well) but also about others who abuse the things that open source developers and others publish. It's not hard to respect open source and freeware licenses (or commercial ones for that matter), so we'd rather not have the lazy and the greedy benefiting.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I see. This race for money - from the sites we are discussing - which finally don't create anything but only provide free portables application, is somewhat new to me. I know from the past some scene groups using coders, and decompiler sofware fighting with each other to by-pass software protection. However in the present case, there is no search for fame or commitment with some underground community. it is only about marketing and stealing a branding recognition to attract more users.
It won't make me change my browsing habit (i.e. even if I see a link marked as illegal site on PortableApps.com, I might remember it as such, but not use the site) nevertheless, I now understand better the reason of the links removal. Thanks to all for your input.
Yeah, I remember when it was introduced. But I actually use a Firefox extension called Text Formatting Toolbar which really helps me out. I made a custom button for it that asks me "What was said?" where I copy and paste the quoted text in, then it asks me "Who said it?" and I type in the person's account name, and it builds the quote for me. Real handy. Oh, and the custom button uses the PortableApps.com favicon, since no other site uses quotes like that.
While I agree with you on this point, here's what I don't get. We agree that the Portablecrapz Guy (we need a shorter, better, more menacing name for him, I think) is immoral and guilty of illegal activities for not only redistributing payware and freeware illegally and violating open-source licenses, but also for stealing other software, e.g. Thinstall, to make those apps.
What I don't get is this: Why, then, are emulators OK up here? While the software itself is open source or freeware, and we're OK there, the software can't be used for legal purposes. Nintendo has always been against the use of emulators to play their games on the PC and other hardware. With the introduction of the virtual console on the Wii, they've even gone so far as to give today's generation of gamers a chance to play a selection of the classics, for a fee, of course. I'm not morally opposed to emulators in the least, but I would think this site would be. It seems that saying emulators are OK is like saying it's OK to use portable apps created with Thinstall, even if it wasn't a legal copy, as long as the app portablized was open source. Or something like that. I'm just curious as to where the line is drawn that emulators find themselves on the good side and Thinstalled apps find themselves on the bad side.
Well "The Scene" is stupid to start with. Interesting analogy though. But Portablecrapz isn't competing at all. To qualify as a competitor, they'd have to have a competing product. Their menu is based on this site's and most of their software is illegal. At best they're an alternative provider. The best analogy is that they're gang members selling stereos out of the back of a truck, compared to Walmart or Best Buy selling them in boxes.
Sure it can. Sharing games and playing games you don't own are where it gets illegal. Do you copy the tracks from CDs you own so you can listen to them on a portable device? Same idea.
Emulators are also used for development. If you want to develop software for say, PocketPCs, wouldn't it be much easier to test using an emulator than the real thing?
Vintage!
The difference there is, you can't copy Nintendo, Super Nintendo games from the cartridge to your computer. Those devices were illegal in the United States long before the DMCA.
Additionally, the owners of the music in question (typically the record labels) don't really mind if you make a personal copy, e.g. for an Mp3 player. It's when you share them on BitTorrent or the like where they really get bothered.
Nintendo has never authorized games to be copied.
And emulators aren't used for development. Come on now. Who wants to develop for NES or Super NES anymore? A brand-new Sega Genesis game did come out in 2006, I believe it was, but that was a fluke. And we're not talking about PocketPCs, we're talking about Nintendo emulators. And in any case, you don't use an emulator to legitimately develop software for a platform; in the case of consoles, you use the official SDK. Typically it's a souped-up version of the console in question with the ability to run homemade software, and the software to compile code to the game system's format. While you can test your software on the console, it still won't work on a regular, consumer-model one, it's got to be sent to Nintendo, or Microsoft, or Sony, to be authored by them, and they publish and distribute, in most cases.
Again, I'm not against, but rather all for emulators. I haven't gone through an emulated game in a few years, but in 2006 or 2007 I went through Zelda 3 and Secret of Mana. I'm just wondering where the line is drawn. I could see a live-and-let-live policy regarding Portablecrapz, at least as long as they changed their logo, as well as portable emulators, but it seems that a site or individual who would take up arms over simply not including the source code with a free, open source application wouldn't let emulators be posted on their site, not in a million years. Just sayin.
There is a small homebrew scene in many of the old consoles. They release interesting stuff that runs on the emulators. And there are ROMS that have been released into the public domain.
Playing a ROM when you own a game is a legal gray area in some locales and, from my understanding, legal in others. I have a few old gameboy games, but my gameboy died. So, is it legal for me to play the ROMs since it is, essentially, a backup?
There is a big difference between making an emulator (which is all legal code) available and ripping off someone else's work and taking credit for it. Or knowingly violating open source licenses. Or seeing a software EULA and deciding it doesn't apply to you and you're going to modify and repackage it anyway.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
. . .wouldn't let emulators be posted on their site, not in a million years. Just sayin.
It's more akin to comparing emulators to, say VLC, and the ROMs to mp3's or avi's. If someone were to ask for ROMs or post links to ROMs, they would be treated exactly the way you think the emulators should be. But the emulators are legal. Hardware emulation in and of itself doesn't do anything except take one piece of equipment (i.e. an x86 PC) and make it act like a totally different piece of equipment (i.e. a Super Nintendo console). Also, it's worth mentioning that console emulators achieve the same purpose as WINE on Linux (except console emulators emulate totally different hardware, whereas WINE simply acts as a software interface, not the same internally, but the same end result). WINE is perfectly legal, free, and open-source. You hit the illegal point when you start distributing copyrighted software to run on WINE.
Quamquam omniam nescio, nec nihil scio.
I've never seen any homebrew for "old consoles" that people actually use. Homebrew is a common excuse, and while I don't think it's justified for emulators, it is valid on consoles that can load homebrew (as well as ROMs) such as the Nintendo DS. For example, there's a 2D platformer based on Portal called StillAliveDS which is a lot of fun. And the organizer, DSOrganize. The former might be fun on the PC (it doesn't use the touch screen IIRC) but DSOrganize would be utterly worthless without a DS. Between its numerous bugs and not doing anything a PC can't do better...
Didn't know about this, but in any case, if emulators were to anonymously track the ROMs loaded and played, I would be willing to bet good money that none of them would be in the global top 25.
You no longer have the Game Boy hardware, but you keep the cartridges in a desk drawer, and use only ROMs for carts you have in this drawer or wherever?
Nintendo would say no, it's not legal (they go so far as to say it's not necessary to maintain backups) but piracy vs. backup court cases have long defended the legal right to have one backup. It's like if I were to download a copy of Windows XP from a Torrent site.
It would look pretty bad, but if I discarded the pirate key and used the one that I bought with my copy, had I lost the disc, the copy would be legal because Microsoft doesn't license the disc, they license the code. But it's, as you say, a grey area.
Well, yes and no. Definitely no on the last part, because every Nintendo game comes with an EULA that says you can't copy it. By using a copy, you're... well, I guess you're not seeing the EULA or whatever Nintendo calls it, unless the ROM includes a .pdf or whatever of the manual. And ROMs are repackaged, and often modified (some have basic copy protection). They're not meant to be packaged in anything other than cartridges, and played in anything other than the one system they were made for (with the exception of Game Boy games which could be played in the GameCube with an adapter, or the Game Boy Advance naturally).
Also, emulator code might be legal, but it's on a technicality. It's essentially double blind reverse engineered from the game console, which may be legal, but it's still rather shady. That it would be illegal if certain precautions aren't taken raises red flags.
Correct; however, in playing DVDs, VLC has several clearly legal applications. Virtually every media player that can play video since Windows Media 7.1 (and before) has been able to play downloaded movies. Microsoft tried to be cute and block this functionality somehow in WMP 7.0, and when they lost market share to RealNetworks all of a sudden, they slammed out WMP 7.1, same thing but without the restriction. I'm sure the facts are a little more complex than that, but that's the gist of it as I recall them.
Skipping ahead, yeah, WINE emulates Windows APIs in the same way console emulators emulate hardware, the whole double-blind reverse engineering thing, and my points about that above apply here as well.
Not how I think. See, I agree with both of you. I have ZSNES on my flash drive. I've got it at home, too. I'd be quite the hypocrite to not disclose that, so there you go. I've just been debating this for years, and it's kind of fun to play the other side. Asking questions of you guys I hoped would never be asked of me (like the bit about keeping the old carts in a drawer).
And while I do agree that there's a difference between playing old ROMs on an emulator and violating software agreements, fundamentally there's not. There's a legal way and an easy way to do things. With video games, the legal way is to only play new games, or to buy those old consoles on eBay and play them the way they were meant to be played. (Never mind the game's developers don't profit from secondhand sales.) With music, the legal way is to buy all your music on CD and rip it yourself, or buy unprotected .mp3 files from Amazon or whoever. With software, the legal way is to either download and share open source software (keeping the source intact), download and use freeware, or pay for payware. If we're willing to overlook playing emulators, and the occasional pirated Mp3, what's wrong with getting a portable Firefox from a site other than this one that doesn't happen to have the source? Technically, differences can be explained, but fundamentally all three are examples of cheating the system.
just a note WINE is an acronym for Wine Is Not an Emulator, it's a compatibility layer
your friendly neighbourhood moderator Zach Thibeau