I just finished Open Menu+ Portable. It's based on Open Menu+, an open source Start Menu alternative and is designed to be a portable apps menu. If anyone has any suggestions for any additional features, please feel free to submit them with the Contact Us page on SciActive.com.
[Self promotional link removed by moderator JTH. Software contains closed source DLLs and an installer that is not under an OSI-approved license.]
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
I wanted to respond so you'd understand why your software does not meet the requirements specified in the forum guidelines. The forum guidelines only permit self-promotional posts of fully open source software under OSI-approved licenses.
1. Your software includes closed-source Microsoft-copyrighted DLLs that do not fall within these guidelines (Most Visual Basic 6 applications will have this issue.). So, while it is legal to link your own code to these DLLs, you would not be able to add in GPLed code or images from other sources without the express consent of the copyright holders. In short, your package would be classified as "Various Licenses" in Wikipedia and wouldn't be eligible for hosting on SourceForge, Google Code, etc.
2. In addition, you are using InnoSetup for the installer. The Inno Setup License contains an advertising clause in the fashion of the BSD-old license, rendering it GPL incompatible and not OSI-approved. This advertising clause was officially rescinded by Berkley back in 1999. OSI only lists the new-style BSD license as approved.
I hope that clarifies why your application does not meet the forum guidelines' requirement of promoted apps being open source.
Regards,
John
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Could you help me make it completely open source? Would it be considered open source if it downloaded the VB runtime DLL from Microsoft on install? Don't all Windows applications require (and sometimes distribute) at least some of the Windows API DLLs, which are not open source? What installer system can I use that is under GPL? Can you please contact me at sales at sciactive dot com or using the Contact Us page on SciActive.com.
Also, SourceForge has a VB6 section and hosts many VB6 applications like PDF Creator for example.
-Hunter
I remember a tutorial on NSIS on how to bring in the VB6 runtimes, and use nsis. It's the official system around here. And it's under a license that is not GPL, but allows anyone to use it, even commercially.
Insert original signature here with Greasemonkey Script.
Since most of the modern versions of Windows do include the basic VB6 runtime modules, I've seen a lot of software that just puts a link to the Microsoft installer for the very few people who do not have it.
The question is whether the VB6 runtime can be considered the same sort of critter as the VC runtimes, and whether the runtime binding that takes place is within the GPL. But at the very least, if any closed-source DLLs are included in your package, the package isn't open source.
John describes a GPL component where the owners would need to give permission to be linked with the previously-installed VB6 libraries at runtime. I'm not sure whether you need to be a lawyer or a theologian to figure all of that out.
NSIS is what is being used here to create installers. It's pretty capable.
MC
Not to hijack the thread here, but with regards to inno setup: LOTS of GPL software use inno setup for their windows setup binaries. A quick search of sourceforge brings up literally hundreds of apps that integrate it in some way. This includes GnuCash... Yours is the only argument I found after doing a quick check of google that suggests that this is improper.
formerly rayven01
NSIS is under the same license...
Insert original signature here with Greasemonkey Script.
If you use this software to
distribute a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation
would be appreciated but is not required.
Sounds optional to me while the BSD-old license made it mandatory.
* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
* must display the following acknowledgement:
* This product includes software developed by the University of
* California, Berkeley and its contributors.
More importantly, according to the following websites, the Common Public License used in InnoSetup conflicts with the GPL.
http://www.ohloh.net/projects/7002/analyses/latest
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#CommonPublicLicense10
Common Public License Version 1.0
This is a free software license. Unfortunately, it has a choice of law clause which makes it incompatible with the GNU GPL.
Cancer Survivors -- Remember the fight, celebrate the victory!
Help control the rugrat population -- have yourself spayed or neutered!
"Unfortunately, it has a choice of law clause which makes it incompatible with the GNU GPL"
Where did you find any mentioning of a choice of law in Inno's license?
That's the quote from the website. The tag doesn't always italicize all the text the tags contain and I'm tired of compensating for it. Just go look at the last link and you'll see.
Cancer Survivors -- Remember the fight, celebrate the victory!
Help control the rugrat population -- have yourself spayed or neutered!
I seen the second link. But I didn't understand what you meant by your post.
An advertising clause?
Do you mean: "If you use this software to distribute a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be appreciated but is not required."? (Emphasis on the NOT REQUIRED)
It specific says "is not required". Would that render Inno Setup's license really GPL incompatible? I's not at all like BSD-Old license which states: "must display the following acknowledgement". (Emphasis on the MUST) To me it is the opposite to the Inno License. But maybe OSI does not allow ane mentioning of "an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be appreciated but is not required", I don't know to be honest.
Inno setup is Free, redistributable, can be used commercially and the source is available. You just cannot take the original Inno Setup and claim you created it.
Sometimes I really don't understand why many people make free software with source and you may do anything you like with it sound like ; well it doesn't fall under this or that approved license and therefore it's not allowed to be used in other free software. Sound to me the big organizations want to exclude all other licenses in the process. It's like saying: nobody may make a GPL application and use an installer like Inno Setup to install the open source application.
Why do these restrictions exist in the free and open source software realm? Isn't the Installer just a delivery platform separate from the application itself? Does it really matter? Does OSI does not want to support all free and open sourced software by not excluding licenses they never even seen?
"The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:"
http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
ive used omp portable and i think its easier and better and just as open source as your menu john.
that if you had closed source libraries in your Open Source app, you could distribute it under the LGPL License...
Insert original signature here with Greasemonkey Script.
Requesting PortableApps software to switch to LGPL or ZLIB license. Both are OSI approved but offer more freedom. (Escpecially ZLIB!!!)
Open Menu+ Portable is also distributed in ZIP format. Is this not GPL compatible. And if not, what archive formats are GPL compatible and why is no one prosecuting the hundreds of GPL programs which use ZIP?
ZIP file is fine
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
I have to google Open Menu ++ Portable
I found it on sourceforge.net.
Downloading now to check it out...
Is this fuzz about being illegal all about the Visual Basic dll's???
If that is really such a big problem to some people, I suggest ALL Visual Basic, ALL Visual Studio and ALL Java applications should not be used for making Portable Apps or any apps at all in the future if it is shush a limitation on Open Source.
Please recompile all apps that were previously compiled with Visual Studio.
While it is perfectly within the rights of the author to link his open source code to the closed source DLLs within Visual Basic (he owns the copyright, so he can do that) he's using other closed source DLLs that are not part of the Visual Basic runtime, which still makes the package freeware with partial source available and not open source... it would not fall within the hosting guidelines of SourceForge or Google Code. As this is still the case and this thread should have been locked initially, this thread is now locked.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!