Thumbapps concerns

[webfork]

Thumbapps.blogspot keeps coming up in forums and I wanted to address it in a more direct way. I've already said some of this before, but I wanted to give the topic it's own home.

Short version: doesn't seem very legit

---

Issues

1. They don't appear to share the source code for either the GPL programs they distribute or the PAF launcher, which is GPL. If they do, it's not labeled clearly. I went digging and the best think I could find was the code section of their sourceforge page, which is blank.
2. It's extremely unlikely they have permission to redistribute some of the programs they provide. For example, they're distributing:
   
   • Adobe Digital Edition portable, which is not at all legal: "Digital Editions is not licensed for distribution on external websites. You may provide a link from your website to access the Adobe Digital Editions download on adobe.com."
     (adobe.com source) ... there's just no way that Adobe made a license exception for some random portable blog.
   • Silverlight portable - I couldn't find license details but it's unlikely this is something you can redistribute.
   • Paint.NET, which has a specific statement against this right at the top of their FAQ: "you may not distribute modified copies of Paint.NET." http://www.getpaint.net/license.html ... they're also distributing an Adobe product. It's possible that permission may have been given (which has happened), but that's not been made clear.
   I may not like distribution restrictions, but I think it's bad policy to ignore them completely.
3. I haven't tested any of the programs on this site but shnbwmn has noted the wrappers themselves don't work very well.

I'm not suggesting we ban listings to the program outright as this isn't piracy and these concerns could be addressed, but I strongly object to the use of any "ThumbApps" program in any official entry.

Also, before someone points it out, yes there are some echoes of the Liberkey situation. Please don't wake the dead on that topic again.

[Midas]

I strongly object to the use of any "ThumbApps" program in any official entry.

• I support that. Talk is talk; going that way is the closest to official endorsement one could get from TPFC.

[smaragdus]

My life is too precious to waste it reading licenses and other legal trash. The only law I willingly obey is the law of my conscience. I have never used a commercial program I haven't paid for and this is where I stop- if the commercial product is not natively portable and there is a way to make it portable I will try to make it portable no matter whether this is contradictory to its license or not.

I have no connection whatsoever to ThumbApps, I am not their defender and I do not care if they breach licenses or not. They have stated that:

Software publisher who wishes their portablized software taken down, can tip us through thumbapps.org or versapps@gmail.com . We promise to take it down without questions, but please be patient—we might not be able to respond promptly, but we eventually *will* ...thanks for your patience, and sorry for being such a #naughty uploader

Currently I use two programs portabilized by ThumbApps:

CuteTorrent (download page)
KVIrc (download page)

I haven't used these programs extensively but so far I have not spotted any issues. If I encounter a problem with these portable versions I will report them at their own threads.

I too think that the portabilizing of Adobe Reader and of Silverlight was a bad idea because both are junk and because I think that freeware developers should refrain from touching anything created by the commercial behemoths behind these two products- I remember that once a developer who created a "Lite" version of Adobe Reader was persecuted. The Adobe Reader Lite page was closed long time ago but this "Lite" version is still distributed by Freeware Files. I am not using this "Lite" version not because it is illegal but because for me Adobe Reader is ultimate junk. In fact I think that I would not use it even if Adobe Reader was great because I do not want to use anything by Adobe.

Actually Adobe Reader is included in "Our Failed Portablization Attempts" page.

I'd be careful with ThumbApps. Apart from looking and reading like a warez site, I've found that a few of their programs are "dirty" - traces on computer, desktop shortcuts, etc. The quality isn't up to par with that of PortableApps.

If shnbwmn doesn't provide some proof I will consider this weasel talk bordering to libel. I want to know- which are these "a few of their programs" and what "traces" do they leave. This is possible but without proof it sounds like a slander.

There is at least one thing I like about ThumbApps- their builds have no splash screens.

However I don't mind the CuteTorrent thread I created to be deleted if violates any licenses or rules.

[shnbwmn]

If shnbwmn doesn't provide some proof I will consider this weasel talk bordering to libel. I want to know- which are these "a few of their programs" and what "traces" do they leave. This is possible but without proof it sounds like a slander.

Sleipnir leaves an icon on the desktop and the default language, on startup, is something Eastern. One of the options probably asks whether to change Sleipnir to the default browser, because my system then pops up such a prompt. XDM doesn't change the download path to the program folder and automatically adds itself to system startup if the option isn't unchecked. Clover also defaults to some Eastern language. Those were just a few programs I downloaded because they looked interesting.

I've come to expect these things (path portabilisation, unchecking certain options, change language, etc) from PortableApps, so that's why I said that TA is not up to par with PA. A person has to go through all of a TA program's settings to make sure it isn't doing something it shouldn't, which shouldn't be necessary.

I initially thought Sleipnir, in particular, left more traces, but after some fresh testing I think I was wrong. My testing of some other programs (Evernote, GOM, Adobe DE, Vivaldi) confirms that they do properly clean-up (although other people are welcome to test further).

Edit: just tried out ClassicShell from TA. There's no way to close it after it's launched, and when terminating the ClassicShell process in desperation, Edge browser no longer opens, a Recycle Bin icon is added to the Desktop, and the system starts flashing that defaults for JPEGs, GIFs, etc has been set to default. The plot thickens ...

[smaragdus]

@shnbwmn
Thank you for the details. Your findings just strengthens my unwillingness to use portabilized programs so I will request a natively portable version of CuteTorrent and I hope that this request won't have the fate of the numerous requests users made for a portable qBittorrent version. One more thing- there is another threat for all the users who use PortableApps wrapper- if a program crashes traces might be scattered all over.

Edit
I think that portabilization of programs like Classic Shell, Clover and Start Menu Reviver is an extremely bad idea bearing in mind how deep these programs integrate into the system. I would be afraid to test such portabilized programs no matter who made them.

[webfork]

My life is too precious to waste it reading licenses and other legal trash

Understandable and there are definitely some license agreements that are impossible to discern. Where possible however, I try to spend time on it because:

• I think it's reasonable for developers -- if they choose -- to distribute their software unmodified from their servers. Unless the main site has stability issues, I don't think ignoring that is a pro-developer position.
• Right now we have excellent search engine rankings because we deal in legal software. That will be hurt if we start hosting software that goes against the software licenses.
• I get upset when major companies like Adobe and Microsoft ignore open licensing so I have to be just as concerned about small projects who don't open the code when the license requires it.

Actually Adobe Reader is included in "Our Failed Portablization Attempts" page.

Yes, but they're still distributing a modified version from their site. If for example they were just distributing the wrapper, that wouldn't be an issue.

I will consider this weasel talk bordering to libel.

I realize this got worked out, but that's very strong challenge. Even if shnbwmn had made a mistake on this point, it still wouldn't affect his standing with me here on the site.

I don't mind the CuteTorrent thread I created to be deleted if violates any licenses or rules.

Again, I'm not suggesting we ban listings, but I wrote up my post because I don't think they should be added to an official entry.

[webfork]

My hesitation on this group remains but I have to note that they landed on the SourceForge.net home page this week:



I have way too much going on right now so I can't dig into this properly but they've branding themselves quite clearly as an alternative to PortableApps.com so I'm sure we'll hear about license issues if this crew continues their ascent.

[Midas]

No more concerns: http://www.thumbapps.org/2017/04/closin ... dwide.html...

[Specular]

There is at least one thing I like about ThumbApps- their builds have no splash screens.

In all the PA packed apps I've used this can be disabled with the following line added to a .ini file placed in the root directory and named after the launcher (eg: for ChromiumPortable.exe the INI would be ChromiumPortable.ini):

Code: Select all

DisableSplashScreen=true

[webfork]

No more concerns: http://www.thumbapps.org/2017/04/closin ... dwide.html...

That is unfortunate. Now I sort of wish I'd dug into the whole topic further and been a bit more active with their project. I might have been able to point them to some revenue sources.