I am Baas wrote:What I said and what you "quoted" are inherently different. "Not sure" vs. your bold claim that it is not authorized.
I was simply verifying (because I checked
) that your hypothesis about it perhaps not being 'authorized' (your word, not mine) was accurate: Ahnenblatt (currently) has no affiliation with PortableApps.com. (This does not inherently mean that Ahnenblatt is not portable [I didn't check], not in PAF format [though it isn't], or that it's breaking any rules [despite the fact that it is]. Nor does it mean that they can't possibly have dealings with PA.c in the future [PA.c likes to help people who are trying to make their apps portable, and use the PA.c Format].) I then went on to explain in detail what I meant.
3D1T0R wrote:... it's not in PortableApps.com Format. In fact, the only difference between it and the "Zip Version" is that the main exe is not signed in the "PortableApps Version", and that there are a couple of empty folders in the "Zip Version" not present in the "PortableApps Version".
Note: I didn't say that there was anything wrong with what it is, simply that it's not what it seems
to be claiming to be: a version of Ahnenblatt that follows the PortableApps.com Format.
However, Ahnenblatt's "PortableApps Version" does use a very official looking PortableApps.com Installer, including the PortableApps.com Trademarked name, 'tagline' (there's probably a better word for this, but I can't think of it right now) & logo, which means that if they're not following the stipulations PortableApps.com has placed on 3rd party use of those trademarks (which they're not), they're using them illegally. Thus I pointed this out, but I'm not saying "TAKE IT DOWN, IT'S ILLEGAL!", I'm just stating the facts, so that someone else can think about what (if any) action should be taken about it. I didn't even state the potential legal issues surrounding the package, because I didn't want to sway anyone's decision, I just wanted the facts of the matter to be available.