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
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.