Can we post JauntPE applications

Message

Jainendra · #1 Post by **Jainendra** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:03 pm

Hi,

I was wondering if we can post freewares converted through JauntPE which otherwise are non-portable.In this way we could have some very useful apps gracing the site.

Jainendra

#2 Post by **Andrew Lee** » Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:43 am

I have a few worries about this suggestion:

1. Would this lead to the database including 99% of all PC software?

2. How would Redllar feel about this?

3. JauntePE is alpha status software. Having one database entry for it is one thing, but having the other 98% entries filled with JauntePE generated EXEs is another!

How do the rest feel about this?

Mickey72 · #3 Post by **Mickey72** » Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:36 am

Also even though it's freeware you would still have to check the licensing to see if you can modify and redistribute the application.

Kranor · #4 Post by **Kranor** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 1:39 am

I think that we should not include JauntePE fixed software in the database.
The average user would have problems getting JPE to work most of the time.
Just post software that works with JPE in the relevent discussion in the forum.

Jainendra · #5 Post by **Jainendra** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:34 am

Hi,

I personally feel that it could lead to some great apps adding to the database.Well I don't feel that 98% of all the PC software are freeware or Open source.So we can surely go ahead on this.

Yes, I fully agree with licensing thing.Anybody submitting converted app/s will be responsible for checking its license and ensuring that it allows modification/s.Another great benefit could be some really great Open source apps becoming portable which would be like dream coming true.I am sure that Redlar would be extremely happy to know that his invention is benefiting more and more people everyday and making life and mind easier of many.

Just for instance, few days back I was looking for a portable download Manager for Vista and could not find any.Finally I found that Orbit is compatible(Portable Wackget is not) with Vista.I extracted with UniExtractor and made it portable with JauntePE.Finally I tested it and it worked fine and no modifications.I was surely thankful to Redlar who had my life simpler by developing JauntePE.Here I must confess that I did not check license as I converted it for my personal use.

Finally may I request everyone here to check its advantages also before discarding this suggestion altogether.
Thanks.

Jainendra

usdcs · #6 Post by **usdcs** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:00 am

Rather than publishing the applications to the database, how about a "cookbook" section for "How I Made [application] Portable Using JauntePE"?

Some advantages, as I see it...
1. No messy licensing issues - each person is responsible for his or her own actions.

Jainendra wrote:I must confess that I did not check license as I converted it for my personal use.

2. No "competing" distribututions of packages.
3. The "recipies" would be good learning tools.

Dan

Firewrath · #7 Post by **Firewrath** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:15 pm

just a quick reply here,
...im trying not to shoot a laptop, >.<

Anyways,
im going to have to agree with usdcs as the best way to do things,

generally you can modify programs for your own use without worrying about the licenses, as long as you dont redistribute them,

Otherwise,
im going to have to say its a bad idea,
trying to get license permission is the bigger thing i think,
and yes, it would cause the database to expand more then need be,
plus, there would be hosting issues,

Jainendra · #8 Post by **Jainendra** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:53 pm

Thanks usdcs for genuinely constructive suggestion.
I fully agree with you on this and it might be the best way to go.

Thanks again.

#9 Post by **Andrew Lee** » Sun Aug 12, 2007 3:39 am

I have moved this topic from the "Portable Freeware Discussion" forum as I suspect redllar only looks at this forum.

I want to know what redllar thinks of this proposition. In particular, I have the following questions for him:

1. At this stage of development, are you comfortable that we redistribute JPE-generated wrappers?

2. What is your position on redistribution of JPE-generated wrappers? If some issue occur in the future, would you ever ask us to retract all JPE-generated wrappers, like was the case with JPE recently?

I am thinking we could slowly replace NSIS wrappers with JPE ones where possible, because I feel JPE wrappers are technically superior to NSIS ones, and more people should get to know this by trying it.

If they become interested, then maybe they could pick up JPE itself later, which obviously require more effort to learn and understand.

sgp · #10 Post by **sgp** » Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:35 am

Kranor wrote:I think that we should not include JauntePE fixed software in the database.
The average user would have problems getting JPE to work most of the time.
Just post software that works with JPE in the relevent discussion in the forum.

I second that. And so far there haven't been that many postings to the thread about software that works with JPE either.

redllar · #11 Post by **redllar** » Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:12 am

I have moved this topic from the "Portable Freeware Discussion" forum as I suspect redllar only looks at this forum.

Yeah, since last week I only go directly to this forum.

As far as the JPE app portablizing packages are concerned, honestly, I'd prefer that you wait until after I'm gone; so that we can concentrate on plugging as many holes in JPE as possible. After that I won't care. I know I brought up the subject again with my poll but I'm now of a different mindset. I think Kranor's thread is sufficient if any of us feels the need to share a complete portablizing package. Maybe it would make for a good sticky?

As far as licensing, the only issue is with JPE and madCHook. The JPE 013 and onward licenses will allow for JPE runtime dll distribution in such app portablizing packages. The madCHook license allows for distribution in any package as long as no profit is made.

Personally though, if you do decide to allow JPE app portablizing packages in, I would prefer that you not use them to replace the NSIS wrappers. Maybe do what you've done with some of the entries, where you just list the other options in the description. I think it should be a first-come-first-serve sort of thing.

To answer your questions:

1. At this stage of development, are you comfortable that we redistribute JPE-generated wrappers?

Sure. Although I consider the entirety of JPE to still be alpha or less, I think well-thought-out and well-tested app portablizing packages are worthy of distribution. I think the JPE runtime has been proven to be pretty solid once the right settings are figured out and the work is tested enough to ensure that none of the app's features are lost.

2a. What is your position on redistribution of JPE-generated wrappers?

The license now allows for it.

2b. If some issue occur in the future, would you ever ask us to retract all JPE-generated wrappers, like was the case with JPE recently?

No. If you grant my wish I won't be here to see the comments. If you don't grant my wish I won't be here to see the comments either, as I'll have left by then.

Chris · #12 Post by **Chris** » Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:22 pm

I respect redllar's decision but I believe by distributing JPEized applications, it means that more people would test JauntePE. And it could lead to better bug finding and feature requesting.
And maybe by doing this, it could show people the difference between normal wrapper and JauntePE.
Just my two cents.

#13 Post by **Andrew Lee** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:12 am

redllar, please see my reply to Kranor.

I think we are roughly on the same track with this. Just need to hash out the details. Will listen to more opinions first.