New: Zoom (May 18, 2023), Platform 25.0 (Apr 07, 2023)
New Apr 14: macOS Portable Drive Support
450+ real apps (49GB), 1.1 billion downloads, Please donate.
I noticed in this forum some old messages about Safari not being included in the portableapps.com database because of its license limitations, which would prevent the making of portable versions.
However, I found out a web site ([Link removed by Mod Tim, see below]) which actually claims to provide a fully portable version of Safari5 for Windows.
How can that be possible?
will provide you also with serial numbers for windows, well if this is legal, you can estimate yourself....
You will always find people who managed to print own money or create duplicates of credit cards etc. Nothing unusual.
But pls do not post such illegal links, the people here did build up a well reputation and are therefore quite touchy about that.
It's simple, they just don't care about license limitations and legality 
As I have checked and see that that site also has versions of Adobe products which we know are illegal I have removed your link.
Please do not link to sites that distribute illegally packaged software, Thanks for understanding 
Mod Tim
Well, I've been using computers for more than 20 years now and I think (or maybe pretend) I have a little knowledge. I did not ask, for example, "Why does Adobe ask money for Photoshop when the program can be found for free in many torrents?"...
I searched the web looking not for illegal software, but just for a portable version of a web browser which, as reported also on Apple's sites, can be legally and freely downloaded and used on any computer running Mac OS or WIndows.
I found that link you removed from my message, I downloaded Safari5 portable, I unzipped it, launched it and used it for a while with no problems.
No serial numbers whatsoever (?) or any other "tricks" or strange tweaks which could suggest the presence of cracks or illegal action at all.
That's why I asked you about it.
As simple as that.
Hi saronno. I think the confusion is that some folks think that just because something is given away for no money that that means people can do whatever they want with it. That's not the case. Repackaging and redistributing Safari is illegal just like repackaging and redistributing Photoshop is illegal. They're both a violation of copyright law. Most portable software sites don't bother with the distinction, though, and treat freeware as free-for-all-ware, which it isn't. At present, there is no legal portable version of Safari anywhere.
certainly not including myself.
I don't think that "free of charge" means permission of doing everything.
I'm well aware of differences between licenses.
Actually I just expected a simple, clarifying answer, something like:
"yes, there are some portable versions of Safari around but, as Apple's license does not allow portable versions to be made and we strictly adhere to licenses, we do not include Safari in our portable collections".
There was no need of any... sermon about the difference between free and "free", promoting illegal software, posting malicious links and so on.
PS. You said that repackaging and redistributing Safari and repackaging and redistributing Photoshop are equally illegal. That is true in principle, in terms of copyright, but surely not from a practical point of view, as repackaging and redistributing a commercial product has to do not only with more or less complex license issues but also (and above all, I'd say) with lots and lots of money. Maybe I'm not a clever observer, but it seems to me that all commercial software houses who heavily complain about piracy do not focus their complaints on licenses...
Hey saronno. I didn't mean to imply you. I was actually referring to whatever site had repackaged it as the 'some people'. And there are others who get confused by that since they see sites doing it and don't know why we can't. I'm sorry if that came off as a slight against you.
You are correct that while the two infractions (Photoshop and Safari) are both copyright infringement, one is policed much more severely.
I'm going to write a book about a boy-wizard who goes to a magic school. It'll be called Harry Portable and the Philosopher's Cloning Software.
Wish me luck.
your gonna need it 
I didn't understand whether Darkbee's comment was intended to refer to my previous post or not.
If it was, I did not understand how.
Illegal is illegal, it doesn't matter whether you can make a moral justification for it or not. Making any kind of portable Safari is illegal, there isn't anything more than needs to be said. The end.
and nicer too >:(
do you mean that, for example, killing someone and stealing a bicycle, which undoubtedly are both "equally" illegal things, deserve to be treated and punished the same way?
I'm not talking about moral justifications.
I only said (and think) that one misconduct is actually much lighter than the other.
what he is saying (as are most people in this thread), is not that they are equal, or should be punished equivalently, but simply that neither is acceptable behaviour on this site.
and it irks me that people won't let the poor dead horse just be, instead they insist on beating it over and over. This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, just a general remark.
No, you can't have SafariPortable.
No, you can't have PhotoshopPortable.
No, you can't have Portable.
At least not here. This site deals with legal software only.
I'm sorry if I sound aggressive, even a tad combative but I get tired of seeing the same posts over and over. John and the rest of the development team are nice enough to meet such postings with polite, informative text, unfortunately not being a member of the development team I often don't feel obligated to extend that same courtesy.
You should extend the same courtesy.
Whether you feel obligated to or not, it is expected.
Mod Tim
In deed, Illegal is illegal - where it is a moral law or not.
In time amoral laws get weeded out though, by people who aren't afraid to think.
/me goes to check if there is a Safari portable to download here - no.. oh well, guess I won't try that - what ever it was.
was a very simple and quiet one, with no aggressive or polemical intent whatsoever.
I found somewhere in the net something, was somehow surprised and so I asked why this site did not provide the same.
I even included in the question itself what I considered the most likely motivation.
I just expected an answer, as simple and quiet as my question; for example the one I have already posted in another of my messages.
I received, instead, some kind of sermons and lessons about legality and illegality (which are quite useless to me as I already know) and also a categorical assertion: distributing a portable version of a freely downloadable software is "the same" as cracking a commercial one. I then declared (and I still do) that, while obviously agreeing on the fact they both are formally illegal actions, they do not seem to me equally serious and equally damaging to the software companies concerned.
I never said to disagree with the choice of this site to fully respect licences. I just needed a simple explanation about Safari, which could be given to me without accusing me of anything and without loosing so much time.
Apologies for some of the over zealous replies.
I tried to give you the simplest reply I could above:
You asked:
How can that be possible?
I replied, in three very simple sentences:
First:
It's simple, they just don't care about license limitations and Illegality
Then:
After visiting the site that you linked to I noticed that they had illegal downloads at their site [Adobe]. While I was not sure of the status of Safari, though it's status has been confirmed at this point, I was sure of the status of other apps at the site [again Adobe]. It's status was, alone, reason enough for the link to be removed, and, as is my responsibility, I did so, and I felt the need to tell you that that was the reason I removed your link.
And Finally:
I made a polite request that links to sites that provided such software not be made and thanked you for your [hoped for] understanding.
I suppose the first sentence alone answered your question but the others were required as I removed your link, which I try not to do unless needed, and I wanted to end with as polite an ending as possible.
I realize that none of your replies was addressed to me directly, at least according to the threading, but I wanted to make it clear that I personally don't think that you intended to do anything wrong. You asked a question and wanted a simple response. I tried to give you one.
It is unfortunate that the link you provided needed to be broken, but I explained why.
It is also unfortunate that some other members of the forum felt the need to continue this conversation further than it needed to be.
Again, I apologize, if you felt in anyway confronted/affronted
If you want to reply to this post feel free to do so, all OTHER members should consider this topic closed!
Mod Tim
Actually you did not say anything I could feel confronted/affronted about.
It takes much more to make me angry :-]
Maybe I could say you made only one... mistake: assuming ("please do not link...") that I knew about the illegality of the site I mentioned, while I did not.
I did not visit the whole site but just that Safari page, whose link I found, together with quite many others, by means of Google's simple search just using the string "Safari 5 portable", with no... cunning words at all.
Besides, that particular site has nothing to do with me and I'm not interested at all in its links being removed or not.
Anyway, while not accepting your apologies (because there's no reason for them), I thank you for your explanations and kindness and also for the admirable work this site does in providing many useful portable applications.
I've been a "fan" or portable software for PC since its very first times (MS-DOS?). I like to leave the base system as "light and clean" as I can: OS, hardware drivers, antivirus and firewall. On top of that, portable apps and virtual machines.
Visit the Community page
Join our forums