LiberKey concerns

Midas · **Posted:** Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:06 am

I am Baas wrote:

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.

I did volunteer an advisory above, but I nonetheless strongly agree with this.

lautrepay · **Joined:** Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:31 am **Posts:** 646

I am Baas wrote:

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:

Quote:

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.

Except JohnTHaller, nobody is questioning the legitimacy of the launcher.
And if you disagree with an eventual note, I respect your position. If there's no quorum, there'll be no notes.
But there are allegations and allegations. Not to recognize that fact is a dangerous way.

vagabond · **Joined:** Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:18 am **Posts:** 9

webfork wrote:

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.

Ok, we are not open-source, but I'll do my best to be understood by everyone. So, here are some concise responses...

webfork wrote:

Instead:

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.
Never actually address the issue at hand (encrypted config files, unclear licensing, trademark law) and just say it's exclusively up to the publishers.
Respond to accusations with counter-accusations and use colorful language "pathological, a smear campaign, an expected attack, shameful," etc.

1) Attacks of Haller basically repeats the same thing over and over. And he writes very long posts. We answered the same way. He does this for years, yes I'm tired of that.
2) The encrypting of config files is a choice. What is the problem exactly ? Anyway we started to provide uncrypted config files.. I don't understand why, but it seems that could be a good thing in this debate (the reason our side is that the format is more stable now, and users will soon be able to build LKS files). Concernig licenses and trademarks, yes, it's up to their owners to talk with us about that. This is what we are doing.
3) Haller doesn't know what he's talking about (or did he pirated our mail box?). So yes this is shameful. In those conditions, I consider words like "Piracy" and "Illegal" as a very "colorful language".. The repetitive aspect of his attacks makes me think about a pathological comportment. I hope it is not really the case, but after years of that, I am a bit angry ..

webfork wrote:

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.

You acknowledged that we have clearly made efforts to comply with GPL 2.0 requirements. Thank you for that. We also have made other changes that you missed concerning the use of trademarks (no more "Portable" added to the names).
We don't consider that we can do everything we want with the apps we selected. We always take care to be in compliance with the editors. We just add this precision: if we missed something, just tell us.
We have already been contacted by editors who wanted us to change some things to be in compliance. That can be done without lawyers, it is very easy to speak together.
For example, you can see in our catalog that TrueCrypt has a particularity: the license is displayed before the download of the app, before installation, and before the download of the source code. This is a spécificity for this app and we have adapted the catalog to be in compliance. No need for threats to agree.

Sorry for this late reply, but I can't spend my time with this polemic..

webfork · **Posted:** Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:36 am

vagabond wrote:

webfork wrote:

Respond to accusations with counter-accusations and use colorful language "pathological, a smear campaign, an expected attack, shameful," etc.

Attacks of Haller basically repeats the same thing over and over. And he writes very long posts. We answered the same way. He does this for years, yes I'm tired of that.

Understandable, but a common troll tactic is to use really big, unspecific, and provocative language. I prefer bland, simple, and (ideally) referencing sources when stating facts.

vagabond wrote:

The encrypting of config files is a choice. What is the problem exactly ? Anyway we started to provide uncrypted config files.. I don't understand why, but it seems that could be a good thing in this debate (the reason our side is that the format is more stable now, and users will soon be able to build LKS files). Concerning licenses and trademarks, yes, it's up to their owners to talk with us about that. This is what we are doing.

Why are you encrypting config files? As a community of people who tend to go into software and tweak it out, making the config files inaccessible is problematic. Additionally, I can't conceive why anyone would want to, save perhaps for security software.

vagabond wrote:

Concernig licenses and trademarks, yes, it's up to their owners to talk with us about that. This is what we are doing.

Certainly. Obviously no one can take legal action against you apart from the intellectual property owner. However, as I've mentioned before these organizations are afraid of being perceived as anti-community. After the FSF took action against companies misusing the GPL, businesses I've talked to got very afraid share-and-share-alike licenses. Additionally, keep in mind if they do take any action against you including a simple Press Release, that's going to burn every bridge you posses. PFWC and (presumably) other sites' tentative involvement will become open hostility. Are you sure you want to take that risk?

webfork · **Posted:** Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:30 pm

I am Baas wrote:

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.

I have to agree. As a big OSS fan, I don't respond well to GPL violators so I have been aggressively searching for clear evidence of violations. Haller doesn't just make things up, but I can't make policy decisions based on "somebody said that..." So far no luck. Unless I can establish a clear and obvious difference between LiberKey and WinPenPack, I can't have a recommendation that will affect these and all future packaging projects. With the example that lautrepay pointed to, FFmpeg:

lautrepay wrote:

Something similar was done in the case of XMedia Recode and had not caused any unfairly damage.

... we did that because FFmpeg listed XMedia on their website Wall of Shame. If the developers would so much as make a forum post denouncing any project they dislike, that would go a long way. As it stands, all I could find is an Add On post that suggests LiberKey doesn't function with some Firefox plugins. Likewise, Piriform Defraggler program is distributed by LiberKey. Piriform has a very clear no-redistribution policy in their license and PortableApps even has a big ugly page describing the license restriction. However, they never directly respond to it in forums.

So I went on the offensive: SearchMyFiles by one of the site's most prolific developers, Nirsoft. Most of us have benefited from his great work so I think his opinion counts for a lot more than mine. His license requires distribution without modification so I pinged him to get his input. I also contacted the developers of Paint.NET and AIMP based on the same issue.

I am Baas · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:51 am **Posts:** 2589

webfork wrote:

Piriform Defraggler program is distributed by LiberKey. Piriform has a very clear no-redistribution policy in their license and PortableApps even has a big ugly page describing the license restriction. However, they never directly respond to it in forums.

That Piriform forum thread is from 2010. Things could have / may have changed since then and as you indicated, Piriform does not seem to discuss issues like this in public. BTW, the last few post in that thread hint at a resolution:

Quote:

Posted 08 June 2010 - 05:23 PM

piriform is back !! available to liberkey!!

and

Quote:

Posted 09 June 2010 - 01:28 AM

Good so see that got sorted out for you guys

webfork wrote:

So I went on the offensive

Talking about fair treatment, will you be doing the same with the other launchers?

vagabond · **Joined:** Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:18 am **Posts:** 9

webfork wrote:

(..) a common troll tactic is to use really big, unspecific, and provocative language.

it reminds me of someone ..

webfork wrote:

Why are you encrypting config files?

the format was not ready to be open, we have prefered to hide it because it changed several times (especially the script part)
it is not compiled, but interpreted. So it's possible to modify its comportment without the user agreement.
we were worried that appear illegal applications (like portableappz)
because we are very bad pirates who have stolen the work of the king of the portable apps world, this is our nature.. You know I'm bad ! (just kidding, ok?)

webfork wrote:

(..) Additionally, keep in mind if they do take any action against you including a simple Press Release, that's going to burn every bridge you posses. PFWC and (presumably) other sites' tentative involvement will become open hostility. Are you sure you want to take that risk?

I'm sorry to repeat the same thing, but there is no reason to attack us because an email is enough to be heard.. Especially if these organizations are afraid of being perceived as anti-community... Please, don't do the same thing than John T(roll) Haller, do not consider we are pirates.. That's untrue (and slanderous).

I am Baas wrote:

webfork wrote:

So I went on the offensive

Talking about fair treatment, will you be doing the same with the other launchers?

+1 !!

webfork wrote:

So I went on the offensive: SearchMyFiles by one of the site's most prolific developers, Nirsoft. (...)

I agree with you. I always have been very impressed and admirative of his work. Opendev has had very positive exchanges with him from the begining, and you can see that he had translated webvideocap into french (2008).

webfork wrote:

I also contacted the developers of Paint.NET (..)

Here again, thanks a lot to Rick Brewster. He has helped us a lot to make Paint.NET runnable in a portable way. We had problems with dependencies and his technical informations have been very helpful.

webfork wrote:

(..) and AIMP based on the same issue.

Here again (and again, and again..) thanks a lot to Artem Izmaylov.
He allowed us to add Aimp into the catalog, and warned us of the imminent suspention of AIMP Audio Tools..

And now you win: I am very very very tired of all of these discussions who have nothing to do on your (nor other) forums..
And I'm very very late with apps updates..
I'm not sure to come back here. It's exhausting and a bit humiliating to be systematically questioned.

JohnTHaller · **Posted:** Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:36 pm

I'd like to make a couple points in response to vagabond's posts, if I may.

First off, rather than directly responding to accusations, you are still deflecting criticism using the 'they do it too' excuse. Particularly in respect to Google Chrome, which you repackage in violation of the EULA, by not responding to specific questions and instead saying that 'PortableApps.com does it, too'. LiberKey has often done this and was shown doing this in the articles about LiberKey's licensing violations referenced above where Christophe refused to answer any inquiries about trademark infringement and freeware license infringement.

If you think PortableApps.com uses our online installer to violate EULAs, the answer is simple: We don't. We have several publishers that prefer us to handle their software that way. As one example, we discussed it at length with Oracle's chief legal counsel, and they were more comfortable with us doing an online installer for jPortable. They were also kind enough to consult with us on a valid name that did not impact their trademarks. As for Google Chrome Portable, it does not violate the Google Chrome EULA as your package does. However, I am not at liberty to discuss more than that in a public forum outside of an NDA. As a company with agreements with multiple software and hardware companies, and with diverse technical and legal fine points that we pay close attention to, this is sometimes the case.

Secondly, by referring to a 'mistake' in your earlier post, are you referring to LiberKey stealing PortableApps.com's software and passing it off as their own for years (removing splash screens, readmes, source code, GPL license files and replacing our bookmarks in browsers with your own)? Or perhaps LiberKey ignoring our cease and desist notice? Or are you referring to the fact that, as a result, your rights to our software under the GPL were revoked making you one of only two software companies whose violations were so flagrant that it got to that point (the other being PortableAppz). Speaking of the GPL revocation, how are you familiar with our current software when LiberKey has no rights to use or redistribute it any longer?

In the end, LiberKey's approach is dishonest, careless and not one I would choose to be associated with.

I am Baas · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:51 am **Posts:** 2589

JohnTHaller wrote:

Particularly in respect to Google Chrome, which you repackage in violation of the EULA, by not responding to specific questions and instead saying that 'PortableApps.com does it, too'.

How is "not responding to specific questions...." violates the Google Chrome EULA?

JohnTHaller wrote:

LiberKey has often done this and was shown doing this in the articles about LiberKey's licensing violations referenced above where Christophe refused to answer any inquiries about trademark infringement and freeware license infringement.

(bold emphasis mine)

The article you refer to is from 2009 and the issues with PortableApps.com were resolved, I believe, in 2010. Do you have any specific proof that Liberkey is currently infringing on Copyrights, EULAs, and etc.?

Also, please explain why do you think Liberkey needs to answer to you about these allegations?

And, you stated

Quote:

I am not at liberty to discuss more than that in a public forum outside of an NDA. As a company with agreements with multiple software and hardware companies, and with diverse technical and legal fine points that we pay close attention to, this is sometimes the case.

Why do you think it is different for Liberkey? Why do you expect them to discuss their business arrangements in public? Double standards, JohnTHaller?

JohnTHaller wrote:

Secondly, by referring to a 'mistake' in your earlier post, are you referring to LiberKey stealing PortableApps.com's software and passing it off as their own for years (removing splash screens, readmes, source code, GPL license files and replacing our bookmarks in browsers with your own)? Or perhaps LiberKey ignoring our cease and desist notice? Or are you referring to the fact that, as a result, your rights to our software under the GPL were revoked making you one of only two software companies whose violations were so flagrant that it got to that point (the other being PortableAppz). Speaking of the GPL revocation, how are you familiar with our current software when LiberKey has no rights to use or redistribute it any longer?

In the end, LiberKey's approach is dishonest, careless and not one I would choose to be associated with.

Again, If there is nothing specific (read proof) against Liberkey in the year 0f 2012, please take your _______ campaign elsewhere.

webfork · **Posted:** Sun Jul 01, 2012 9:54 am

vagabond wrote:

Please, don't do the same thing than John T(roll) Haller, do not consider we are pirates.. That's untrue (and slanderous.

It is important at all times to stand up for generous, giving people who make their time, effort, and skills available. Here on the site we try to stick up for the rights of freeware developers who are effectively doing charity work by just giving away their work. If they have a few minimal requests for making their work available (licensing, distribution requirements, etc), those should be respected. If there's no angry developers, there's no issue.

To that end, the Paint.NET dev got back to me:

Quote:

LiberKey asked for, and received from me, permission to distribute a portable but otherwise unmodified version of Paint.NET.

Version 3.5 of Paint.NET changed the license to be more restrictive in the way you noticed. LiberKey didn't update from v3.36 to v3.5 until maybe a year later, and not until after they had permission.

In general, I'm fine with portable app repositories distributing Paint.NET as long as they don't modify the software. Ninite is fine, for example. Download.com wrapping it with mal^H^H^H adware installers is definitely not, and is one of the things I unfortunately have to be on constant guard against (which can mean changing the license). I don't pay attention to this community though, so I'm not aware of the things being discussed in that forum thread (ripping off other repositories, etc.).

So unless one of the other developers gets back to me or Mozilla/Oracle release some kind of public notice, I don't have anything else to add.

vagabond wrote:

very very very tired
exhausting

Yes I think we're all very familiar with how tired you are now. You should get some rest.

----

Update: Nirsoft got back to me as well:

Quote:

Thanks for the report. I already got a few reports about LiberKey in the past, but I don't see them as a significant problem. They give their package for free and they don't hide the fact that these utilities came from NirSoft.

Sometimes I have much more annoying problems than LiberKey - there are people who sell my software for a few $ , promising that my software will do something that it cannot do, and when the person who paid is not pleased, I'm the one who get the complaint and request to get a refund...

webfork · **Posted:** Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:13 am

I am Baas wrote:

webfork wrote:

So I went on the offensive

Talking about fair treatment, will you be doing the same with the other launchers?

If you or other forum members who I've come to trust say so then yes.

Midas · **Posted:** Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:24 am

webfork wrote:

If you or other forum members who I've come to trust say so then yes.

A fine moment there... :mrgreen:

stevegutry · **Joined:** Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:20 am **Posts:** 16

Some points that I would like to add.

This whole debate appears to be a private witch hunt by John Haller.

Why is it that only John Haller comes up with these allegations?
If an outsider was to try to read between the lines, it would seem that this website is also being accused of being associated with/linking to illegal software.

Surely, if there were any substantiated allegations, would it not seem to be the place for the respective software developers to take action - why is it that John Haller acts for them!
Professional jealousy perhaps or maybe potential financial gain?

I think that it would be in everyone's best interest if John Haller moved this discussion to a suitable forum on his own web site - I'm sure that he would get a more appropriate & sympathetic response there.

webfork · **Posted:** Sun Jul 01, 2012 3:47 pm

Midas wrote:

A fine moment there... :mrgreen:

Thanks Midas

stevegutry wrote:

This whole debate appears to be a private witch hunt by John Haller.

Not quite: other members of PortableApps and journalists mentioned previously (albeit a few years ago) have to some extent corroborated Haller's concerns.

stevegutry wrote:

Professional jealousy perhaps or maybe potential financial gain?

Perhaps but this isn't the first time license issues with competing portable software collections have come up. From Lupo Pensuite, WinPenPack, and my own personal experience with the Kitchen Sink project, Haller wasn't friendly but didn't pull things out of thin air for ammunition.

Jami · **Joined:** Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:14 pm **Posts:** 9

[Moderator note: Some private information was removed. Please refrain from publishing such info without prior consent. In addition, public email addresses were removed due to complaints of them being available as clear mailto links and potentially harvestable by spambots. They are however in publicly available here for those interested.]

Follow the money.

John T. Haller Founder,
Lead Developer PortableApps.com - Your Digital Life Anywhere

Software and Hardware Partnerships, Distribution and Other Business
If you're interested in partnering with us to make your software portable, to bundle a custom version of our software on your device or to distribute our software, please contact:
• Phone (Toll-free, US & Canada): 800-704-6344 extension 1
• Phone (Local and International): 646-289-5002 extension 1
• Address:
PortableApps.com
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave Suite 5209
New York, NY 10118

Press Relations
For questions about an upcoming story or to schedule an interview, please contact:
• Phone (Toll-free, US & Canada): 800-704-6344 extension 2
• Phone (Local and International): 646-289-5002 extension 2
• Address:
PortableApps.com
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave Suite 5209
New York, NY 10118

LiberKey concerns

Who is online