Thindownload.com [discontinued]

[grannyGeek]

very interesting.
I'm *almost* positive the link to Thindownload on the Thinstall demos page _used to_ have a disclaimer of some kind that Thinstall would not take responsiblity for Thindownload offerings.

Now it says

Thindownload is an independent site that offers a large amount of free software in a portable, Thinstalled version

It seems that most of the offerings on Thindownload are Open Source, and packaging those with Thinstall would be legal, wouldn't it?

Other items are Freeware license (PDF Xchange viewer, FastStone, some others), and maybe ThinDownload made agreement with the developers to release the Thinstalled package.
Or, maybe not ......

Tangled webs, methinks.

[malikorx69]

Yea it is very strange. There are so many factors that could make this site legal, yet there is such a higher possibility that it is not. Nonetheless, I use the site and download their software.

[m^(2)]

very interesting.
I'm *almost* positive the link to Thindownload on the Thinstall demos page _used to_ have a disclaimer of some kind that Thinstall would not take responsiblity for Thindownload offerings.

Now it says

Thindownload is an independent site that offers a large amount of free software in a portable, Thinstalled version

It seems that most of the offerings on Thindownload are Open Source, and packaging those with Thinstall would be legal, wouldn't it?

Other items are Freeware license (PDF Xchange viewer, FastStone, some others), and maybe ThinDownload made agreement with the developers to release the Thinstalled package.
Or, maybe not ......

Tangled webs, methinks.

Actually the GPL ones (miro, miranda, audacity, ...) are illegal (to publish). Probably so is Firefox and Winamp. Thinstall and Thindownload just doesn't care.

[Simon.T]

illegal?!?!?! where?

[malikorx69]

Feel free to request apps to be made as stand-alone executable programs. The form is in the bottom left corner of the page at http://www.thindownload.com

Make sure that any submissions are freeware and open source. If the program is freeware but not open source, that is fine as long as it is free to distribute. This ensures that they can be added to The Portable Freeware Collection without violating any Terms of Use or Program Licenses.

[ignign0kt]

Don't they use an evaluation license of thinstall anyways? Stupid IMO.

[m^(2)]

illegal?!?!?! where?

If you publish anything that contains GPLed code, you have to provide all sources of this thing. They do not give Thinstall sources, so it's illegal.

[malikorx69]

This is at the bottom of the page of ThinDownload.com

LEGAL DISCLAIMERS:
1) thindownload.com is not affiliated with, sponsored or endorsed by Thinstall
2) Thinstall is a registered trademark of Thinstall in the U.S. and in other countries.Thinstalled is a trademark of Thinstall
3) thindownload.com is not responsible for the content of a software publisher's description. We encourage you to determine whether this product or your intended use is legal. We do not encourage or condone the use of any software in violation of applicable laws.
4) thindownload.com does not sell, resell, or license any of the products listed on this site. We cannot be held liable for issues that arise from the download or use of these products.

[Zach Thibeau]

Basically anything thinstalled is usually Illegal considering most thinstall versions are illegal them selves, Secondly it Violates the GPL because when using thinstall (whether it's the actual application or the thinstalled application you must accept thinstalls license which Violates the GPL)

[grannyGeek]

I tried earlier to get some questions about GPL answered, but got no response.
It was the last post in a January thread
http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/ ... hlight=gpl

Maybe this is the thread to pick that discussion up?
Or maybe I should start a new thread for this?

from Wikipedia, synopsis of newest GPL license:

Terms and conditions
The terms and conditions of the GPL are available to anybody receiving a copy of the work that has a GPL applied to it ("the licensee"). Any licensee who adheres to the terms and conditions is given permission to modify the work, as well as to copy and redistribute the work or any derivative version. The licensee is allowed to charge a fee for this service, or do this free of charge. This latter point distinguishes the GPL from software licenses that prohibit commercial redistribution. The FSF argues that free software should not place restrictions on commercial use,[18] and the GPL explicitly states that GPL works may be sold at any price.

The GPL additionally states that a distributor may not impose "further restrictions on the rights granted by the GPL". This forbids activities such as distributing of the software under a non-disclosure agreement or contract. Distributors under the GPL also grant a license for any of their patents practiced by the software, to practice those patents in GPL software.

Section three of the license requires that programs distributed as pre-compiled binaries are accompanied by a copy of the source code, a written offer to distribute the source code via the same mechanism as the pre-compiled binary or the written offer to obtain the source code that you got when you received the pre-compiled binary under the GPL.

So, a lot of folks have interpreted it that you can create and distribute a "wrapper", and let the user incorporate their own copy of application with the wrapper.

The ThinSTALL site (not ThinDownload) made available Thinstalled versions of FireFox and OpenOffice. (I wouldn't like to accuse Thinstall of illegal practices.) The Thinstalled OpenOffice I downloaded from there way-back-when includes a copy of the GPL License. They don't, however, include a link to the OO source code --- I guess that *might* constitute a violation of the license on their part.

Any thoughts or clarifications, guys????

[malikorx69]

For anyone who is wondering, Thinstall works by packaging an application into a single "thinstalled" EXE which includes the runtime plus the application data files and registry. Thinstall’s runtime is loaded by Windows as a normal Windows application, from there the runtime replaces the Windows loader, filesystem, and registry for the target application and presents a merged image of the host PC as if the application had been previously installed. Thinstall replaces all related API functions for the host application, for example the ReadFile API supplied to the application must p111ass through Thinstall before it reaches the operating system. If the application is reading a virtual file, Thinstall handles the request itself otherwise the request will be passed on to the operating system. Because Thinstall is implemented in user-mode without device drivers and it does not have a client that is preinstalled, applications can run directly from USB Flash or network shares without previously needing elevated security privileges.

I have worked with Thinstall before, only thru a trial version of the program. I had created Thinstalled versions of a few apps, Open Source Freeware of course, and they worked fine. Only issue I had was that I needed to create the Thinstalled apps by using Thinstall on a clean computer. What I mean by that is a computer that was brand new, or had a clean install of Windows on it.

[malikorx69]

Whether they use an evaluation copy or not, the Thinstalled applications are still free. And the evaluation copy has no limitations compared to the full copy, mind the time before expiration. And how is that stupid? Would you rather them pay thousands of dollars for Thinstall, pay to host the site and then give away free software, or use a free copy of Thinstall and do the same thing? Saves them money and it's the smart thing to do, not stupid at all if you look at it from their point-of-view

[m^(2)]

I tried earlier to get some questions about GPL answered, but got no response.
It was the last post in a January thread
http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/ ... hlight=gpl

Maybe this is the thread to pick that discussion up?
Or maybe I should start a new thread for this?

from Wikipedia, synopsis of newest GPL license:

Terms and conditions
The terms and conditions of the GPL are available to anybody receiving a copy of the work that has a GPL applied to it ("the licensee"). Any licensee who adheres to the terms and conditions is given permission to modify the work, as well as to copy and redistribute the work or any derivative version. The licensee is allowed to charge a fee for this service, or do this free of charge. This latter point distinguishes the GPL from software licenses that prohibit commercial redistribution. The FSF argues that free software should not place restrictions on commercial use,[18] and the GPL explicitly states that GPL works may be sold at any price.

The GPL additionally states that a distributor may not impose "further restrictions on the rights granted by the GPL". This forbids activities such as distributing of the software under a non-disclosure agreement or contract. Distributors under the GPL also grant a license for any of their patents practiced by the software, to practice those patents in GPL software.

Section three of the license requires that programs distributed as pre-compiled binaries are accompanied by a copy of the source code, a written offer to distribute the source code via the same mechanism as the pre-compiled binary or the written offer to obtain the source code that you got when you received the pre-compiled binary under the GPL.

So, a lot of folks have interpreted it that you can create and distribute a "wrapper", and let the user incorporate their own copy of application with the wrapper.

The ThinSTALL site (not ThinDownload) made available Thinstalled versions of FireFox and OpenOffice. (I wouldn't like to accuse Thinstall of illegal practices.) The Thinstalled OpenOffice I downloaded from there way-back-when includes a copy of the GPL License. They don't, however, include a link to the OO source code --- I guess that *might* constitute a violation of the license on their part.

Any thoughts or clarifications, guys????

I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system. Can I do this by putting a “wrapper” module, under a GPL-compatible lax permissive license (such as the X11 license) in between the GPL-covered part and the proprietary part?

No. The X11 license is compatible with the GPL, so you can add a module to the GPL-covered program and put it under the X11 license. But if you were to incorporate them both in a larger program, that whole would include the GPL-covered part, so it would have to be licensed as a whole under the GNU GPL.

The fact that proprietary module A communicates with GPL-covered module C only through X11-licensed module B is legally irrelevant; what matters is the fact that module C is included in the whole.

They don't write it, but I guess they assume that you distribute them as a single work, so it doesn't answer your question. When you distribute wrapper separately from the GPLed program - it's legal. When they are together, but user has to perform some action to make them a single program - I'm not sure, but it's probably also legal - it's user who combines a thing GPLed and incompatible with it, so you can publish it. He can use it, but can't publish it.

BTW I wouldn't download and use thinstalled software from such place. You cannot take a look inside the package and don't know what is executed. They can contain crapware and no antivirus detects it.

[grannyGeek]

I will probably never get my head around the quirks in license requirements

Maybe Thinstall has made some sort of agreement with OO and with FireFox for the demos they offer on their own site (not the ThinDownload site, which is independent). As I noted in that post, Thinsall site does include a copy of the GPL license in their "open-source" demos.

(I don't know if ThinDownLoad includes copies or not.
I tried OpenOffice from Thindownload months ago, and deleted it after 10 minutes of testing due to extreme bloat and sluggish behavior. Didn't pay attention to license copies.)

Since Thinstall is being used by large corporations and some government agencies, I doubt very much that Thinstall, as a company, would distribute mal-ware (or even ad-ware). So I feel the downloads from the Thinstall site of demo'ed apps are safe. << all two of them >>

[m^(2)]

I will probably never get my head around the quirks in license requirements

Maybe Thinstall has made some sort of agreement with OO and with FireFox for the demos they offer on their own site (not the ThinDownload site, which is independent).

Yes, possibly.

As I noted in that post, Thinsall site does include a copy of the GPL license in their "open-source" demos.

As they still violate it - funny behaviour.

Since Thinstall is being used by large corporations and some government agencies, I doubt very much that Thinstall, as a company, would distribute mal-ware (or even ad-ware). So I feel the downloads from the Thinstall site of demo'ed apps are safe. << all two of them >>

I also don't think so. But I'm careful, especially with ThinDownload. And I would never run thinstalled app posted on a warez forum, to be downloaded from rapidshare.