LiberKey concerns

Discuss anything related to portable freeware here.
Message
Author
User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 715
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

LiberKey concerns

#1 Post by JohnTHaller »

[Moderator note: this topic has been split from the main topic.]

----
Andrew Lee wrote:I have added LiberKey to the database: http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=2306

Not sure why nobody has done it before.
Mainly because LiberKey was caught red-handed taking a bunch of PortableApps.com apps stripping off the splash screen, readme, source code, GPL license, bookmarks, etc and passing them off as their own for about 2 years. We had to cease and desist them on that. They may have done the same with WinPenPack apps at the time, but I'm not sure.

Currently, they repackage and distribute freeware unlicensed and in violation of the associated EULAs including Google Chrome, uTorrent, Firefox, etc (none of which permit redistribution in anything except the unaltered signed installer from the publisher without express consent). Their config files are encrypted and all the components are closed source so you can't tell what it is doing.

Essentially it's an illegal suite built by one developer that gets away with it because it's relatively small and located in France.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

lautrepay
Posts: 715
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:31 am

Re: LiberKey - Portable sofware suite

#2 Post by lautrepay »

JohnTHaller wrote:Essentially it's an illegal suite built by one developer that gets away with it because it's relatively small and located in France.
We should establish the difference between the launcher (which, ultimately, is what was added to the database) and the applications that integrate the suite.
The fact that the distribution of the applications is perhaps made in violation of the license of their respectives developers does not imply that the launcher can not be a perfectly legal and legitimate development. One thing does not eliminate the other. In what I am concerned, I am not aware of any accusation in that regard. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
To make things clear about the point, perhaps a note should be added to the entry

User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 715
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: LiberKey - Portable sofware suite

#3 Post by JohnTHaller »

lautrepay wrote:We should establish the difference between the launcher (which, ultimately, is what was added to the database) and the applications that integrate the suite.
The fact that the distribution of the applications is perhaps made in violation of the license of their respectives developers does not imply that the launcher can not be a perfectly legal and legitimate development. One thing does not eliminate the other. In what I am concerned, I am not aware of any accusation in that regard. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
To make things clear about the point, perhaps a note should be added to the entry
Since the very first thing this launcher does is prompt you to automatically download a suite of illegally-packaged software, it's a very fine line to be drawn. The launcher itself, being closed source, may or may not contain infringing code from elsewhere. As their launcher used to be ASuite before LiberKey went closed source, there is a chance it could still contain some code from that (which would be illegal as ASuite is GPLed). The same way their closed source portablization launcher was released after we cease and desisted them but their suite still appeared to contain code gleaned from us.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 6710
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: LiberKey - Portable sofware suite

#4 Post by Midas »

IANAL: if it works as stated, I'm game... but I understand if others disagree.

User avatar
vagabond
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:18 am

Re: LiberKey - Portable sofware suite

#5 Post by vagabond »

JohnTHaller wrote:Since the very first thing this launcher does is prompt you to automatically download a suite of illegally-packaged software, it's a very fine line to be drawn.
Stop your smear campaign against LiberKey.
You're the only one saying that LiberKey is illegal.
LiberKey has never had a problem with software editors.. except you !
The reason is that our menu is far better than yours and we have taken a part of your users.
You see us as a real competitor. Thank you for your interest, but please, stop boring us with your lies..
JohnTHaller wrote:The launcher itself, being closed source, may or may not contain infringing code from elsewhere. As their launcher used to be ASuite before LiberKey went closed source, there is a chance it could still contain some code from that (which would be illegal as ASuite is GPLed). The same way their closed source portablization launcher was released after we cease and desisted them but their suite still appeared to contain code gleaned from us.
You're right: LiberKey is closed source... Is it a problem ?
The LiberKey Menu is about 100.000 lines of code. I wrote each of them. None comes from your poorly thought out scripts.
I wrote LiberKey portabilizer, LiberKey Installer, LiberKey update checker (online apps updates two years before portableapps..), Portable Desktop Shortcuts, Key Files Assoc', LiberKey Ejector (USB), etc.. I wrote the synchronisation system with the online catalog, many tools for the backoffice, the main part of the website. I know what I'm saying. All I've made has nothing to do with your work. So please, stop to be so ridiculous...

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 3052
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: LiberKey - Portable sofware suite

#6 Post by Andrew Lee »

Since the very first thing this launcher does is prompt you to automatically download a suite of illegally-packaged software
It seems to me open-source has always been about the "spirit" of the license rather than the technicality of the license. I don't think anyone has ever been sued on technicality, which is why developers seem to have a greater "trust" for open-source licenses.

Now, the spirit of the Firefox/Thunderbird license appears to be about disallowing someone taking the code, producing another browser with substantial differences and calling it "Firefox" or "Thunderbird", thus creating consumer confusion. I don't think anyone has ever been taken to task for repackaging the software, or recompiling it with compiler optimization, then distribute it as "Firefox" or "Thunderbird". The day that happens will be a very sad day, kinda like Oracle suing Google over copyright of API!

Some people may choose to interpret the law to the dot and shoving it down people's throat, but I think most developers have a pretty good sense of what's right and what's wrong i.e. the "spirit" of the license, and I suspect individuals/companies who go against that spirit will not be very popular with the developer community.

User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 715
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: LiberKey - Portable sofware suite

#7 Post by JohnTHaller »

vagabond wrote:You're the only one saying that LiberKey is illegal.
LiberKey has never had a problem with software editors.. except you !
It's been reported in multiple articles online as well as by others in forums here on PortableApps.com and other websites. The reason LiberKey wasn't listed on this website originally is because it was just ASuite and apps from other places with the names taken off. Was it you who stripped the splash screens, source code, licenses, readmes, etc off and redistributed PortableApps.com's apps as your own or was that OpenDev? Did you take Firefox Portable from PortableApps.com and remove the PortableApps.com bookmarks and insert a LiberKey one without permission back then or was it OpenDev? Note that those events are not in dispute at all. They happened and can be confirmed by multiple parties. And then OpenDev was caught lying about it. As for now, do you have express permission from Google, uTorrent, Opera, Mozilla and all the other publishers to repackage their software now? None of them permit you to strip the software out of their installers and repackage them in zip files and distribute them for commercial gain as you are doing. When asked, OpenDev has always refused to answer this question because the answer is no.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 715
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: LiberKey - Portable sofware suite

#8 Post by JohnTHaller »

Andrew Lee wrote:Now, the spirit of the Firefox/Thunderbird license appears to be about disallowing someone taking the code, producing another browser with substantial differences and calling it "Firefox" or "Thunderbird", thus creating consumer confusion. I don't think anyone has ever been taken to task for repackaging the software, or recompiling it with compiler optimization, then distribute it as "Firefox" or "Thunderbird". The day that happens will be a very sad day, kinda like Oracle suing Google over copyright of API!
Lots of folks have been taken to task when taking someone else's free product, altering/repackaging it, and redistributing it for financial gain without permission. A freeware license doesn't mean public domain or free-for-all. The whole reason LiberKey had to stop using PortableApps.com's software is they violated the GPL (letter of, spirit off, and just plain ethically) by trying to pass our software off as their own (removing the license, readme with copyright details, splash screens, source code, bookmarks, etc). So we cease and desisted them. The only reason LiberKey hasn't gotten more is due to their small size.

There is a difference between re-implementing an API and illegally distributing someone else's works in a manner they have not permitted you to for financial gain. Google didn't take Java, paste their name on it and try to pass it off as their own. They wrote Dalvik from scratch and made it compatible with the same APIs as Java.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: LiberKey - Portable sofware suite

#9 Post by webfork »

vagabond wrote:Stop your smear campaign against LiberKey.
You're the only one saying that LiberKey is illegal.
  • David Murphy over at Maximum PC:
    • [LiberKey] incorrectly uses trademarks and logos, permission or not. A numbre of LiberKey's issues could be cleared off the table if the permissions its allegedly been granted ever saw the light of day. The company refuses to do so. That single sentence says almost as much as the 2,000+ words preceding it.
  • Dana Blankenhorn didn't call it illegal, but compared the LiberKey response to allegations as a farcical.
  • Me - although I also wouldn't say illegal, I'd say "non-compliant".
vagabond wrote:
JohnTHaller wrote:The launcher itself, being closed source, may or may not contain infringing code from elsewhere
The LiberKey Menu is about 100.000 lines of code. I wrote each of them. None comes from your poorly thought out scripts.
I wrote LiberKey portabilizer, LiberKey Installer, LiberKey update checker (online apps updates two years before portableapps..), Portable Desktop Shortcuts, Key Files Assoc', LiberKey Ejector (USB), etc.. I wrote the synchronisation system with the online catalog, many tools for the backoffice, the main part of the website. I know what I'm saying. All I've made has nothing to do with your work. So please, stop to be so ridiculous...
So lets break down that argument:
  • 1. There is no issue with my software being closed-source
    2. My code is completely original because I wrote many different parts of it

    Therefore, comments that my code is unoriginal have no merit.
I think you skipped a step.
Last edited by webfork on Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: (deleted part about GPL violation, which wasn't true)

User avatar
I am Baas
Posts: 4150
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:51 am

Re: LiberKey - Portable sofware suite

#10 Post by I am Baas »

@webfork

1. The articles you linked to are 3 years old.
2. Could you please move this thread to discussion/chat subforum?

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: LiberKey Concerns

#11 Post by webfork »

I am Baas wrote:@webfork

1. The articles you linked to are 3 years old.
2. Could you please move this thread to discussion/chat subforum?
  1. That's true. However, I didn't see anything that LiberKey did differently to address the concerns, so they appear to remain valid.
  2. Sounds good.
Last edited by webfork on Sun Jun 17, 2012 5:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: (better wording)

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: LiberKey Concerns

#12 Post by webfork »

webfork wrote:
I am Baas wrote:The articles you linked to are 3 years old.
That's true. However, I didn't see anything that LiberKey did differently to address the concerns, so they appear to remain valid.
Update: My mistake: they are hosting the source code to better comply with GPL 2.0 requirements. That was sloppy research on my part and clearly LiberKey has clearly made efforts to comply with that license. However, the trademark issue Murphy referred to remains an issue:
In short: LiberKey's modified software might not be such a big deal, but the trademarking provisions are. And even if LiberKey has obtained permission to use trademarks--which it has offered no proof or suggestion of doing--it's still using some trademarks incorrectly.
I have updated my earlier post to remove mention of the GPL violation.

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 3052
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: LiberKey concerns

#13 Post by Andrew Lee »

After reading David Murphy's article, I came away with the same feeling over Lawrence Lessig's description of the copyright mess. In his book Free Culture, he describes how the existing copyright law constrains how content producer can use content from other sources due to the burden on the content producer to seek permission from all the copyright holders. This is extremely expensive and time-consuming. A lot of producers end up not doing it, or reduce their scope of work. Our culture becomes poorer as a result.

In LiberKey's case, I feel "If a software developer has an issue with LiberKey's inclusion of a program, they need only contact the LiberKey developers to have the application quickly removed" seems quite a reasonable compromise to the layperson. That's how DMCA works for content as well.

The same goes for licensing and trademarks. I just can't wrap myself around the fact that if you recompile Firefox with x686 optimization and redistribute it, you can't call it "Firefox". What kind of a world do we live it? I know this is legally wrong, but from a "reasonableness" point-of-view?

Same goes for GPL source code. I can't help but feel we are nitpicking here. We know where the source code is. We know these guys didn't modify it. Why insist that they host it themselves to make things "legal"? AFAIK, entities have only ever been taken to task for modifying GPL code and not publishing it (thus contributing back to the community, which is the "spirit" of the GPL in the first place). Has anyone ever been sued for compiling GPL code and distributing the binary without hosting the code?

If the license is embedded within the installer, that could be a potential problem. The author wants you to read them, but if installing the portable version bypasses that process, the author might be mad. But there are ways around it eg. the portable version can pop up the license when the app is run for the first time. As before, this should be implemented in the form of a DMCA-style take down i.e. if the author doesn't like it, contact the offender to take it down (or better, find a compromise). Insisting that no one messes with your installer... well, isn't that what the DMCA guys were trying to do too? You know, you bought our stuff with your own cash, but damn you if you try to take it apart!

As with copyright, the main question is: "Is it fair use?" in this case. And I would argue it is, because the objective is to make apps that are normally non-portable portable, and these guys have obviously spent a lot of work creating the launcher, update mechanism, portable shortcuts, portable associations etc. To argue that using the unaltered application binaries under this framework is "crime" seems unreasonable to me.

These are just my feelings about this case. I am of course strongly against code theft of any form, so if LiberKey has truly stolen or misappropriated code from PA or anyone else, then this should be condemned! But the current substantial differences in functionality and appearance between the LiberKey launcher and ASuite clearly shows it is not a straightcut ripoff, so even if they are using some existing code from ASuite, the bulk of it must have been rewritten. I don't have enough background to comment on John's allegation that they stole intellectual property from PA (strip out logo, remove license etc.) though.

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 6710
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: LiberKey concerns

#14 Post by Midas »

Not crazy about this IP rage myself. Developers deserve respect and rewards, but it's my belief that code is speech (unlike money...) and should be treated as such.

IMHO, this mess stems from the nonexistence of the so called 'moral rights' in the copyright legal framework, contrary to what is the norm in continental Europe with its 'droit d'auter' -- in here, those 'moral rights' never depart from the author and include the right to attribution and, most importantly in the current debate, the right to the preservation of the work's integrity...

User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 715
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: LiberKey concerns

#15 Post by JohnTHaller »

Regarding Andrew's thoughts on fair use, it is not fair use. Fair use would involve taking a portion of a work for commentary, etc. A piece of software, just like a book, you can't take it and redistribute it in a form other than the author makes available unless said author give you permission, either in the license or directly. Even if you were to take a book and translate it into another language to make it available to people who can't normally read it, it's still illegal without the publisher's permission. This has been argued successfully in the courts numerous times. And translating a book into another language is a far more altruistic and noble endeavor than making a piece of software portable.

Many freeware apps are provided to advertise the author's site, so they want you coming back to upgrade, not going to a pirated software site that redistributes it outside the original installer. Many authors don't want you to even have access to or install the software until you have agreed to their specific license, not having people rip the files out of the installer and redistribute it in a renamed zip file (lks files). Many authors only want their software associated with specific things, not a site that illegally takes a work and then hopes the author doesn't find out about it and ask them to stop. Many open source authors who worry about trademark don't want their apps bundled with secret or proprietary things (LiberKey's encrypted config files) or artificially tied to closed source software (LKS 'portable' packages). We have dealt with all of these types of publishers at PortableApps.com. We try to come to an agreement or an arrangement that they are comfortable with. Some are simply not comfortable with anyone redistributing their software period. Some have other restrictions. We always respect these. We have several publishers we are in discussion with where we've been negotiating with them for months to gain access who aren't interested in portable at all. Some of these apps, including some where the publisher has said they don't want anyone distributing their app in any form except the installer they provide it in, LiberKey is distributing in modified packages right now without the author's permission or even knowledge.

LiberKey's statement that "If a software developer has an issue with LiberKey's inclusion of a program, they need only contact the LiberKey developers to have the application quickly removed" is an admission that they are repackaging software without permission and without trademark agreements in place. The DMCA is not in place to allow a website to illegally copy works, hope not to get caught, and then have a way out when they do. It is in place so that websites that accept user-submitted content (text, audio, video, etc) don't have to review every submission for compliance. They can be informed after the fact and then remove it. If the publisher them self is the one uploading copyrighted content illegally, they can and will be held responsible. Especially if it is done purposefully and repeatedly for commercial gain as in the case of LiberKey.

Just because a given piece of software is free does not mean the author has any fewer rights than if it is commercial. They are still allowed to place a license on it and control the method and means of distribution. They were kind enough to provide a useful work they created for free, it's only fair we return the favor and respect their copyright, trademark and wishes.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

Locked