LiberKey concerns

[Midas]

John, you're always there, always with the same strong word "illegal"...

What John fails to acknowledge is that US law is not (yet?) international. That will be the cause for much resentment...

BTW, did you know the USA didn't sign the Berne Convention until 1976? Prior to that, foreigners weren't entitled to any copyright protection over there unless their country had signed a bilateral copyright agreement. Ask Charles Dickens, for example, how he felt about that...

[webfork]

Piracy, aka copyright infringement of software, is the unauthorized copying of computer software. ... 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.

That may be true, but I wouldn't call Wikipedia the source on legal matters. When I think piracy, I think cracked commercial software. Even if LiberKey modified Firefox to include adware and spyware, that would be evil, but not piracy. Unfortunately, we circle back around to the same problem: I don't know the legal definition of piracy either -- Wikipedia may be right.

In either case, I've never heard of the enforcement arm of software piracy (the BSA) going after people who merely modified free software. If they don't think its a big issue (and they seem to think every IP violation is big), I have a hard time seeing a clear direction.

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?

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.

Again, I'm stuck on how they are any different from WinPenPack. Maybe you could spell this one out for me in greater detail. WinPenPack isn't using licenses and trademarks incorrectly?

Both my WinPenPack and Piracy questions are not intended to confuse the issue or pollute the argument: I'm trying to understand the specifics behind why LiberKey is problematic. The issue here is a question of policy and we can't have a lot of grey area when making policy decisions. I'm inclined to avoid LiberKey because they seem anti-community, but that's not something I can translate into a policy recommendation.

What John fails to acknowledge is that US law is not (yet?) international.

Being legal in all locales isn't possible. What seems wise is to aim for a legal framework that affects as many as possible, and US law has a wide international impact. Additionally, as Mozilla, Oracle, and many of the other companies in question are US-based, they will have authored their licenses and associated materials for a US audience.

[vagabond]

I'm inclined to avoid LiberKey because they seem anti-community, but that's not something I can translate into a policy recommendation.

I find that remark a little bit vexing .. Why do you think this?

[Andrew Lee]

Let me reiterate that unless someone can prove to me that:

- LiberKey launcher is illegal

- or -

- Giving the user choice to download the LiberKey suite upon first-time startup of the LiberKey launcher is illegal

I will support leaving the LiberKey launcher entry in the database.

[Midas]

What John fails to acknowledge is that US law is not (yet?) international.

What seems wise is to aim for a legal framework that affects as many as possible, and US law has a wide international impact.

Probably, and unfortunately this isn't a matter of opinion, because the US has been actively endeavoring to covertly export its legal copyright framework by any means available (as, for example, an unsigned annex of the international treaty that created the World Commerce Organization; that's how they reeled China in; see the ACTA debacle for later developments), which is something I, for one, don't accept lightly... Gunboat diplomacy might have worked in the past, but then it doesn't win you any favors with the natives, does it?

@Andrew: I'll support you on that...

[stevegutry]

[]They are making money on the backs of producers

Correct me if I have got this wrong, but don't you make money by selling USB drives pre-packaged with your software suite!

Do the software producers get a share of that profit?

[webfork]

Correct me if I have got this wrong, but don't you make money by selling USB drives pre-packaged with your software suite!

You've got your licenses mixed up. Projects like Haller's are perfectly within their rights to accept donations and make money by distributing software. This has been going on with BSD distributions since back in the 80s on CDs. They are well within their rights.

If LiberKey was only distributing permissively licensed materials, they would be welcome to do similarly.

[webfork]

I'm inclined to avoid LiberKey because they seem anti-community, but that's not something I can translate into a policy recommendation.

I find that remark a little bit vexing .. Why do you think this?

Its important when you are accused of doing something wrong in open source to respond clearly and concisely. This is not a community that is a stranger to this type of exchange.

Instead:

1. You write lengthy articles that basically repeat the same thing over and over again: Haller is just attacking competing project and that you're very tired of talking about this.
2. Never actually address the issue at hand (encrypted config files, unclear licensing, trademark law) and just say it's exclusively up to the publishers.
3. Respond to accusations with counter-accusations and use colorful language "pathological, a smear campaign, an expected attack, shameful," etc.

The Italian project managers of the competing WinPenPack project have in the past been forthcoming and made a real effort to accommodate problems with their work. If you'd like some examples of good community response, look to them.

[Danix]

Hi webfork,
despite this discussion is related with LiberKey, we have read some affirmations that, I think, need some clarification.

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?

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.

Again, I'm stuck on how they are any different from WinPenPack. Maybe you could spell this one out for me in greater detail. WinPenPack isn't using licenses and trademarks incorrectly?

Both my WinPenPack and Piracy questions are not intended to confuse the issue or pollute the argument: I'm trying to understand the specifics behind why LiberKey is problematic. The issue here is a question of policy and we can't have a lot of grey area when making policy decisions. I'm inclined to avoid LiberKey because they seem anti-community, but that's not something I can translate into a policy recommendation.

Advertising, on our site, have the only purpose to cover the hosting and bandwidth expenses of our site (anyway, without success). This is the only way we found to try a self-financing. Thus we have not earn money, rather we have lost a lot. As we have repeated many times, our work in winPenPack project is absolutely free.

Then, we already stated and established that we don't infringe any law and that our packages are absolutely legal (confirmed here and elsewhere, so, please, let us not repeat that, it would be very boring for everyone..). All the issues regarding the use of the programs licenses and the software redistribution have been overcome by directly confronting with sourceforge responsibles, getting from them the approval for our work (please read here and here).

The trademark have never been violated (nor used improperly) from us, but, for the rest, JohnTHaller is, substantially, right: we have never purposely, willfully and knowingly violating software's EULA. So, in this case, no precedent has been set, nor exists, from us. Other official projects normally use our same technique to download the online setup, not only for open source software (we limit ourselves to this) but also for closed-source commercial software (for example Google Chrome or Skype).

Although we haven't received issues from no one, we have also overcome the "JavaGet issue" integrating its functions directly in the X-Launcher source code.

Finally, please do not pull over the name "winPenPack" in the same sentence with the word "Piracy". Is wrong and untrue. You know very well what kind of software we distribute: open source and freeware, no more than this. In particular, for all the freeware we have portabilized, we have received a written authorization from their authors: pirates certainly do not work in this way. Choosing the words more carefully, in the future, will be very appreciated.

[donald]

I have no love for LiberKey or the Launcher Program, but ...

I love TPFC and what it stands for.

I also very much still like the PortableApps.com launchers and Apps.

Reviewing Mr. Haller's response to my previous post I find that the only argument remaining (against the Launcher) once the issues are divided into their distinct and separate parts, is that the Launcher Program offers to download packaged software that could violate law, license, & copy-write, etc.


My suggestion: Please consider adding a warning (regarding the package downloads offered) to the TPFC entry. And consider checking the packages offered before posting such a warning with positive declarations. IE use the words may, or might not is, until a confirmation is in hand.

Further as Mr. Haller has mentioned 1 specific application he has been trying to get permission to package, that has not given permission to him, or to LiberKey, Please ask Mr. Haller to name the specific application so that the author can be contacted and asked regarding the LiberKey packages of their software, and permission.

Also other software producers could be contacted, but Mr. Haller could make this very easy by naming his specific software producer.

[lautrepay]

My suggestion: Please consider adding a warning (regarding the package downloads offered) to the TPFC entry.

I'm glad we share the same opinion at this point.
I think that you are the best suited to take the initiative and add the note, if no one objects.
Something similar was done in the case of XMedia Recode and had not caused any unfairly damage.

[donald]

Before inserting a warning I would like to get some opinions, so find my first draft below.

Applications downloaded by this suite may be in violation of license, Eula, etc. Please use your own judgement and discretion when deciding to/not to download these applications. (Most provided packaged applications can be found listed in un-packaged compliant form on TPFC or packaged elsewhere compliantly.)

Please feel free to edit this and post it here if you can improve it.

[Midas]

Another take:
Concerns have been expressed regarding a possible breach of licensing terms for applications offered for download by this program. Discretion is advised about whether or not you should download them. In case you share such concerns, the majority of those applications are listed and downloadable in a licensing compliant manner from TPFC.

[donald]

Oops spoke too soon. ...

"The distribution of the prepackaged portable apps mentioned above may be is made in violation of the licence agreements established by their respective owners/publishers/developers. Please use your own judgement and discretion when deciding to/not to download these applications"

Possibly better if the section

above may be is made in violation

is shortened to

above may be ... in violation

Unless of course Lautrepay is trying to credit the creation of the launchers in which case I would think it would be best as

above may be ... made in violation

and to which might be added & distributed

as follows

above may be ... made & distributed in violation

Also Mention of the availability of the applications elsewhere in compliant form might be appended.

[I am Baas]

I disagree.

This launcher was taken in TPFC DB because it satisfied the entry criterias (still does). The only established fact about the launcher is that it offers to download prepackaged portable applications on first run. This is already mentioned (vaguely) in the DB entry:

LiberKey is a portable launcher that serves as a gateway to prepackaged portable apps available in the LKS format

The rest is just allegations and as long as it stays that way, Liberkey does not deserve a different treatment than WPP, Potableapps, and the likes.