ArcThemALL!

SYSTEM · **Posted:** Sun Jan 09, 2011 12:24 pm

JohnTHaller wrote:

If you're interested in classifying ones that are more open source vs less, you could use things like "Freeware / Mostly Open Source" and "Freeware / Partially Open Source". The field used here on PFC is called license, so the first thing that appears should be the overall license. Since it doesn't have to be a set thing, it could even be unique to the app. So Chrome Portable could be "Freeware (Chrome Browser: BSD, Launcher: GPL, Flash: Freeware)". That would be the most accurate as it starts with the license of the overall package and then breaks it down in terms of overall functionality of the pieces of the package.

Very good idea.

I think I'll change the license fields that way when I update entries in the future.

joby_toss · **Posted:** Sun Jan 09, 2011 12:30 pm

JohnTHaller is right!
I understand it could feel somehow unfair to some programmers, but the main thing we should keep in mind is the legal point of view. And law has very little to do with fairness!
Just my opinion.

guinness · **Joined:** Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:00 am **Posts:** 3705

But I hope everyone understands that it wasn't intentional with the wrong classification of the ArcThemALL! license. The easy thing seems to be writing the code!

It's what comes after that is the difficult part.

JohnTHaller · **Posted:** Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:00 pm

guinness wrote:

But I hope everyone understands that it wasn't intentional with the wrong classification of the ArcThemALL! license. The easy thing seems to be writing the code!

It's what comes after that is the difficult part.

Of course. Honestly, it took me quite a while and chatting with both lawyers and other folks who have been developing open source far longer than I have to understand all the whys and hows of it, even though the basics are easy (respect copyright, distribute source, keep licenses intact, etc). At the time, I wanted to be sure that PortableApps.com got it right so we wouldn't make the same legal/licensing mistakes of some other portable packagers. Now, I just don't want to see anybody else make similar mistakes.

webfork · **Posted:** Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:47 pm

JohnTHaller wrote:

The percentages actually don't matter at all from a licensing, distribution or legal standpoint, though. The app, as a whole, is still freeware in the overall product. You can't redistribute the whole app under an open source license.

First, I don't think redistribution is an issue for PFWC as we don't distribute software, save for a handful of offline programs. We're basically a news site. Even if we were, we're not trying to fool anyone and tell them closed software is open or non-commercial is fully free.

Second, its difficult to say that "Freeware + other licenses" is somehow more legally accurate. The order of legal contracts obviously makes no difference as evidenced by the "fine print" so common in legal affairs. My interest therefore is accuracy in describing the software as a news site for a target audience of portable software users.

Third, I don't think even average users would get confused. Anyone who is reading and caring about licenses is probably a person who's looking at details. I can't see someone worried about legal ramifications mysteriously skipping everything after they read "BSD".

This is an important issue because I welcome users who take the time and trouble to write a PortableFreeware entry here on the site and I'd prefer not to requiring them to write it a specific way unless there's a clear reason.

JohnTHaller · **Posted:** Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:57 pm

webfork wrote:

This is an important issue because I welcome users who take the time and trouble to write a PortableFreeware entry here on the site and I'd prefer not to requiring them to write it a specific way unless there's a clear reason.

Don't forget that this isn't a common occurrence. Most listings will just be X app with its license, and most apps are either closed source or open source. Chrome is unique because it's an open source app that they then added Flash to. Universal Extractor and ArcThemAll! are unique because they are conglomerations of multiple apps put together. But these are rarities in PFC overall.

joby_toss · **Posted:** Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:23 am

I'm having second thoughts about my previous opinion. Regarding ArcThemAll!.
Could mpress support be dropped? I never use it. Does anyone here use it?

Lupo73 · **Posted:** Sun Jan 16, 2011 5:43 am

I have worked in these days to separate closed source components and now version 4.0 beta is ready to be tested

It now supports UPX, ZIP and 7Z formats by default... and MEW11, MPRESS and Upack compressors as additional plugins, that users can decide to download and configure from Options (only if they want). I have also updated the software description (as recommended by Haller):

Quote:

It is a software to multi-compress files and folders (UPX, ZIP, 7Z) and to extract archives of several formats.
It includes an intelligent UPX compression mode, the support to self-extracting archive creation, encryption/decryption of archives, support for additional compressors (MEW11, MPRESS, Upack) and much more.

And the list of features:

Quote:

- Multi-compression in UPX, ZIP and 7Z formats
- Multi-extration of 33 archive formats
- Creation of self-extracting archives
- AES-256 encryption/decryption of archives
- Intelligent UPX compression modality
- Advanced compression settings
- Support drag & drop to load files and folders
- Support MEW11, MPRESS and Upack external compressors
- Support shell integration in SendTo and ContextMenu
- Auto-processing, Auto-exit and System-shutdown options
- Available both installer and portable versions

So maybe it could come back to the fully open source license note...

This is the current changelog:
- improved software interface
- improved software Options
- added icons in the main listview (thanks to Guinness for it!)
- added plugins system for external compressors
- added support to MEW11 and Upack
- fixed some minor bugs

You can download this BETA (unstable) release from here:
http://www.lupopensuite.com/files/ata/A ... rtable.zip
http://www.lupopensuite.com/files/ata/A ... Source.zip

joby_toss · **Posted:** Sun Jan 16, 2011 6:21 am

I encountered no errors so far. Thank you!

The license issue is gone, from my point of view.

loin2kolpotoru · **Joined:** Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:20 am **Posts:** 111

I Have Just Downloaded ArcThemALL!_v4.0. Thank you for adding support
for mew11, upack.

But you have not added support for brute force compression.
As you have doubt that brute force compression might currept the
executables, so i must tell u that first i have used brute force
many times but didnt find this problem, Second it is optional
someone may use or may not use brute force, thired the files
compressed with upx can always be uncompressed & get the original
files back if something goes wrong.

I have a new suggestion you can add support for decompressing files
compressed with mpress, mew11, upack the information about unpaker
necessary for this can be found using ExEinfo PE.

Lupo73 · **Posted:** Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:16 am

I could consider to add support also for brute compression, but for what algorithm? upx or another?

About decompression, I don't know how to implement it if is not a included feature. Obviously we can consider to do it if you help me with the implementation.

Note also that compression options in mew11 and upack are a little confused, so I hope to have implemented them correctly (eventually, you can check my code to verify it).

Finally note that mew11 compressor is a little unstable. I have added support also for it, because you requested it, but its compression sometimes fails and its gui cannot be hidden during compression. Both mew11 and upack are closed source and no longer developed, so unfortunately their issues cannot be fixed.

loin2kolpotoru · **Joined:** Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:20 am **Posts:** 111

Brute compression support should be added for upx only
because it is constantly developed, stabel and above all files
compressed by upx can always be decompressed easly if anything
goes wrong.

For decomressing other packers -
When we drag & drop any compressed exe file on ExEinfo PE
it gives information about the packer used to pack it and
about the unpacker for decompressing it.

ExEinfo PE can be downloded from -
http://www.exeinfo.xwp.pl/

You can try @SW_HIDE flag of auto it to hide the mew11 gui-
example -
Run("mew11.exe", "", @SW_HIDE)

Lupo73 · **Posted:** Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:23 am

Ok for brute compression in UPX.

About decompression, authors of mew11 and of upack report that their packers are only for compression, so I think original files cannot be restored. Anyway you could test them with ExEinfo PE and report an eventual different situation.

I use @SW_HIDE to keep other gui hidden, but unfortunately it doesn't work with mew11. Anyway I think it isn't a big issue.

guinness · **Joined:** Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:00 am **Posts:** 3705

Lupo, could you not use WinSetState() or WinSetTrans() I haven't check the code in a while but this one/two options.

loin2kolpotoru · **Joined:** Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:20 am **Posts:** 111

I have tried but not succed i think someone more knowledgable
then me should try. Is there someone else who can try the above
process to decompress other packer.

ArcThemALL!

Who is online