I totally get your points, John. And I respect the tremendous effort that PA has put in to reach the authors, no question about that.

I also understand the desire of the producers to control their work. Not just software developers. I remember Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) talking about this issue in one of his blog posts about how he wants to control where and when his comics appear (and got a suitable amount of negative comments for it).

I am just wondering if the current system has given the producer too much rights. For example, people who lip-sync to music and publishing them on YouTube without first getting permission from the right holders are under the danger of being sued. In this case, they are using the entire song, and you can say they might be profiting from YouTube's adshare revenue.

Recently, Isaac Lamb proposed to his girlfriend via Bruno Mars' song, and the video has gone viral and got upwards of 7m hits at last count. He is lucky Bruno Mars thought well of it and did not decide to sue him!

Under the current legal system, you are absolutely right about all your points. But if you ask the public about their feelings regarding intellectual property and intangible products, then it becomes less black-and-white. For example, if you ask me about my feelings regarding repurposing executables for a larger portable platform, I have already made it clear in my previous post where I stand. I feel it should be allowed, maybe after a certain number of years like copyright. Or it could be under a take-down regime like the DMCA.

I guess what I am trying to say is that regarding IP and intangible products, the law is still evolving to catch up and there will be more clashes in the future between the authors and the consumers/producers who want to take and extend their work.

This is a much too narrow definition of fair use (and rather ethnocentric, IYAM) -- it doesn't cover the protection of the public domain, the right to make books freely available through public libraries or second sale issues, for example...

This kind of stance stems from what I call the "edenic theory of creation" -- insofar as it posits authors as the all exclusive responsibles for whatever they create, thus erasing all the cultural background/framework that made/makes that work possible. You could also call it the "fiat lux", "out of thin air", or "no prior art" authorship theory -- meaning it's an ideology like the (many) others...

Andrew, I can respect your opinion, though I disagree with it. And I can certainly respect what you've made of PFC here. But, feelings aside, it doesn't change the fact that the activity we are describing is completely illegal now. Your other points are also talking about transformative works in a situation where there is no desire for profit on the part of the poster (sharing a lip syncing video, emailing a funny comic to a friend, etc). In this case, LiberKey is specifically altering and redistributing something for-profit. They are making money on the backs of producers and know full well that they are doing it and that they are doing so illegally. The same way they knew they were doing illegal and unethical things when they took a bunch of our apps and passed them off as their own (violating the GPL, trademark and copyright) and then lied about it to at least one reporter.

It's more akin to MegaUpload which attempted to hide behind the DMCA but was uploading copyrighted works themselves the whole time, making money off producers illegally. Despite the fact that they were supposedly removing content under the DMCA, it was eventually exposed what they were actually doing and they were taken down to prejudice. In this instance, LiberKey knows full well that he's pirating software (and that is the technically correct term). The DMCA doesn't apply in France so it's actually harder for a publisher to get their works taken down from pirate software sites. And I know from previous interactions that his host ignores copyright complaints (at least they used to) when I was attempting to get them to stop illegally redistributing our software. And LiberKey ignored numerous emails we sent them about distributing our software illegally as well.

PFC has always been good about not linking to illegal and pirated software sites as well as not listing illegally repackaging of apps in the databases (like not linking to an illegal repackaging of uTorrent, Google Chrome, etc on a MegaUpload-type site). Is that going to change now that you've allowed LiberKey in which automatically downloads the same type of illegal packages and are linking to their site on which you can download illegal packages of many apps?

It gets tiring trying to defend an ethical approach to portable software (or any software) sometimes. I was in an email exchange with a publisher just yesterday whom I have been negotiating with for 3 years now trying to get permission for a few of their apps to be packaged in PortableApps.com Format and be able to appear in our software directory and work with our automatic updater. They said they are working on enabling that for us soon but they currently want all users visiting their site. And that they haven't given anyone permission to repackage as of yet and anyone doing so is doing it 100% illegally. LiberKey has had these very same apps repackaged for years now. Maybe we should start letting publishers know about the piracy.

_________________
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software

Those are all valid fair use instances as well. Copying a (current, copyrighted) book and putting a new cover on it with an intro you wrote and selling it would not be, though.

_________________
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software

@JohnTHaller
I think that the discussion should be separated into the very different concerns involved;

1.) The LiberKey Launcher does it contain illegal or pirated code?

2.) Is the LiberKey Suite Illegal?

2b.) Should the LiberKey launcher be UnListed here @TPFC for linking to
the LiberKey Suite which users 'could' voluntarily download.

3.) Should software that could be used for illegal activities be banned, removed? Either here, or anywhere?

Possibly including web browsers, video players, image viewers and editors which
could be used for viewing illegal content ie under 18 images and videos.

Maybe including software for downloading Youtube Videos, or Audio from streaming WebRadio aka StreamWriter.

Even including Torrent clients which might be used to download more than the latest Puppy Linux Distro, or distributing family videos etc.

The problem with banning something based on possible uses is that everything could then be banned,
because everything could be misused.

_________________

Sure, that makes sense.

Honestly, I don't know. It's closed source and all the config files and 'how it is portable' config files (akin to the INI files includes with PortableApps.com and WinPenPack apps) are encrypted to hide how they work.

Yes, there are numerous applications currently bundled that are done in direct violation of the apps' EULAs, trademark guidelines, etc. They've gone so far in the past as to bundle PortableApps.com apps with our name, source, license, etc stripped off, so this is unsurprising.

As its main function is to download and update illegal software that's a part of LiberKey, I'd say yes. A user purposely going to seek out something illegal and doing that with a piece of software with legitimate uses is very different from a piece of software that offers to download and link you to illegal apps right away.

The slippery slope argument is a common one but everything in the world is a slippery slope. PFC does list emulators, for instance, but doesn't link to illegal ROM download sites. All the tools you are listing above have lots of legitimate uses and don't offer up illegal content or activities within them out of the box. So, a torrent client is just fine as it has lots of legitimate uses even though a user of their own volition can go out and download illegal things with it. A torrent client customized to download a semi-regularly-updated illegal package of the week's top 50 albums directly from servers that the publisher of the torrent client controls while offering up advertising alongside it to make money would not be. And that's analogous to what LiberKey does as it prompts you to download an illegal software suite when you run it as well as link you back to its primary software site offering illegal software when doing searches, etc.

_________________
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software

I've been reading this discussion on and off, and decided to try the launcher out today.

It appears that the statement John made earlier about the LiberKey launcher prompting you to download a suite of software is untrue, or at least has been changed with the recent version. After installing it and launching it myself, I found there were no prompts to download anything. There were 'news updates' that could be clicked on to find a few packages listed, but nothing in the LiberKey launcher pops up and asks you to get some of their bundled software packages.

So, I see no problem with the launcher itself or allowing the link to stay on this site. LiberKey may allow you to download illegal packages, but it doesn't force you to. And its ridiculous to ponder over an idea that the launcher itself 'could' contain parts of code written by others. That debate should be dropped. It might have used ASuite at one time, but it is so completely different from that launcher that you might as well compare it to PStart.

The real issue IMO is the software packages on the LiberKey site, not the launcher (which by the way is pretty impressive for free software). And as for the software legality debate, I am staying out of it.

I did however download a couple of packages out of curiosity to see if they had a reduced footprint compared to the numerous unnecessary extra files PortableApps and other launchers leave on the USB drive, but the few packages more or less worked out to be the same overall size. I do like the launcher though, and may consider replacing PStart..

The very first thing it does is offer to download a suite of illegal software on a new install of the current version as you can see in this screenshot: http://imgur.com/nfDvv This was done on a clean Windows XP install and nothing was done except install and run.

_________________
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software

Huh, that's odd. I'm running Windows 7 and installed it 3 times and never had any such screen pop up. I just ran it on an XP Pro Virtual Machine though, and that screen does indeed pop up. I suppose that must be a bug. Oh well, as long as I use Windows 7 I'll never have to worry about clicking Cancel.

On both a WinXP and a Win7 machines, I do confirm that one of the first things the launcher did after a fresh install was to suggest that I download a software suite…

First, I can't tell how they're making their money outside of advertising, which is something WinPenPack does on their website as well. WPP also doesn't have a license to Firefox or their Java package, so its difficult to make a case against LiberKey without a clear distinction from WPP listings, which have set a precedent. Additionally, if WPP's launcher adds a "download software" prompt feature, would that put them in the same category?

Second, major download hubs like Softpedia and Download.com are both hosting LiberKey. Will you contact them as well and ask them to be removed? Download.com might be interested in avoiding of this sort of conflict.


Does LiberKey actually violate that policy? Its unethical to use open software in a way that doesn't align with the author's requests for its use, especially if those requests are quite reasonable. Encrypted config files, distribution outside of authorized means, and use of established trademarks are certainly not compliant. While it might be illegal, I have difficulty seeing how this is piracy.

Anyway, since the primary crux of LiberKey's argument seems to be that it is entirely up to the copyright owner to take action against license violations, some kind of response from publishers (as you mentioned there at the end) would seem to put that to rest.

_________________
Supporting the Electronic Frontier Foundation | DuckDuckGo user | My GPG key | Projects donated to: VLC, CubicExplorer, Ditto, Greenshot, TrueCrypt, WinSplit

Personally, I am against removing LiberKey from the database. I have been using it as my main launcher now, and I am using it with my old collection of portable apps without needing to download any apps from them. It is a darn good stand-alone launcher in its own right.

I agree with Donald that breaking it down is good for analysis:

1) Does the launcher contain pirated code?

I think this has not been establish legally in a court of law, and it being closed-source does not seem like a valid argument to me (else all closed-source freeware listed in the database will be suspect). In the past, we have encountered pirated apps that are pretty clear cut 'cos the pirate obviously didn't do a very good job I don't think anyone can say that about LiberKey here, so it's "innocent until proven guilty".

2) Is the LiberKey Suite illegal?

Again, although John has a lot of good points, it hasn't been proven in a court of law. Certainly, sites much bigger than TPFC are hosting LiberKey, so that says a lot about the status quo. Even if the LiberKey Suite is illegal, how much does that affect the launcher? The launcher appears to be a standalone unit that is functionally independent of the suite, so I think the legal technicalities are at best murky here.

On an interesting note, I am thinking of Sardu, which lets you build a multi-boot CD or USB. Some of the components obviously prohibits repackaging for redistribution, but by providing a tool that downloads and repackages the various components on the user's machine, surely that is a legal thing to do? That would surely get around the legal traps under the current system and shouldn't be that difficult (just a script to unpack and repackage the files). The end result would be the same!

Advertising alongside pirated software is considered commercial gain and has held up in courts. The situation with WinPenPack is a bit different as Firefox and Java issues are trademark use improperly. LiberKey is purposely, willfully and knowingly violating software's EULA and, thus, copyright, which is a more cut and dry issue.

I'd wager they are unaware as Download.com hosts a number of infringing packages of all types, including illegally packaged portable software from other entities. They don't review everything that goes up on the site, just scan it for viruses.

Piracy, aka copyright infringement of software, is the unauthorized copying of computer software. If an unethical individual gets a free piece of software that explicitly forbids distributing it outside of its installer as much freeware does and decides to do so anyway, he's pirating it. Software can only be distributed the way the publisher gives you the right to. So, software, even if it is free, says you can't distribute it in the EULA, you can't. Most free software says you can distribute it provided it is unaltered, stays in its original installer, etc. But you need to follow those rules to distribute it. Otherwise you're just illegally copying software.

I suppose I can ask a couple of them. But as they have much bigger fish to fry (like making money), they may be uninterested in weighing in on the case of one small French software pirate.

_________________
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software

If I show you a previous version of the LiberKey suite with pirated copies of our apps inside it would you remove it? Or keep it since the current version doesn't have pirated software in the base copy (it just immediately offers to download them) and you happen to like the launcher now? Just because a court hasn't ordered you not to host a copy of Photoshop Portable, does that mean you will? Saying you only follow a court of law means you're ok with LiberKey's "we're fine doing illegal stuff as long as we don't get caught" philosophy.

The difference is that LiberKey is providing you the illegal software that they pirated themselves. They're not just providing you a tool for you to do it. They downloaded and repackaged Google Chrome, uTorrent, CCleaner and others in violation of the licenses and without publisher permission. And they are providing you a handy downloader to download these illegal packages directly from them. Not to mention the fact that you are directly linking to and promoting LiberKey.com's website which directly provides pirated software.

_________________
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software

Hello all,

I'll try to do my best to explain my point of vue, but keep in mind that english is far from being my native language.
Google translate is my friend, but my english teacher was not.

What I want to say is that all of these discussions tire me.
I spent much time to code the LiberKey tools and I know that I have robbed no one.
I am tired that this project in which we have given so much energy is constantly accused of being illegal. And yes, most of time, John T Haller is the one who opens the debate. No software editor present in LiberKey never complained, exept John.
We have already acknowledged making a mistake with John's apps on a very old version of LiberKey. We had then immediately stopped its distribution when we received the email from John. But it's always the same old story...
People who talk about this subject always use "may or may not", "probably", many assumptions, but no real complaint from authors/editors. Do you realy think that France is a small village far far away? Of course editors can contact us, John did it. An email has been enough to be heard. And of course we want to do "legal" things. The reason no one complains has nothing to do with the fact that we are a "small" project located in France (not so small, John. Thanks for your contribution). It's just that we have no problem with the software publishers. And we have no problem with them because our approach is honest. It's that simple.
Initially, we are just fans who have wanted to share with other some software that we find great, and do this in a portable way. The spirit is really not to want to appropriate the work of others, but to offer our work.
But John, you're always there, always with the same strong word "illegal".. Are you policeman ? (And now you have found a new toy: "Piracy".. I'm starting to wonder if this is not pathological ..)
That you insist in this way suggests that either you're very resentful or we are competitors, or both..
I'm just tired of all of that and I have no time to waste to feed this endless controversy.
You are not legitimate for defending the rights of third parties. I'm sure google does not need your help to do so. We have no reason to justify us to you.
You are always talking about rights, so you surely know what means "defamation". This is exactly what you are doing with LiberKey.

Like the "Chrome Portable" setup provided by John T Haller, it's an "online installer"...
It makes me think that John T Haller has PROBABLY no authorisation from google, and PROBABLY he is doing illegal things.. Interesting hypothesis..
What would you think, John, if we had spent our time to publish similar assumptions about portableapps.com?

There was a time when John T Haller attacked LiberKey on the technical aspects. As he can no longer do so because LiberKey is better than PortableApps he now spends his time trying to damaging the image of the project on the legal aspect.
I am sure that readers can understand what is happening here: John T Haller is afraid of LiberKey because we are technically a real competitor. That's his only real problem here and this debate is the manner he found for trying to push us out of the ring.

Writing this post took me over two hours.. (yes, english is not easy for everyone) so I stop here.
Have a good day, and long life to portable apps..