Kosmik
Honorary Master
Why not approach the publishers and offer to become an official mirror for them? TBH when I download apps these days, if it's not from the publishers site or a mirror from them, I don't.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Have you ever been to an airshow?
Is it illegal??
- Thread starter Mr.CookieMonster
- Start date
JerryMungo
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 37,568
- Reaction score
- 6,299
You mean link to their website... hotlink implies fetching a file other than html.
JerryMungo
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 37,568
- Reaction score
- 6,299
I wouldn't - that's unnecessary bandwidth costs and takes up time and effort. They will take a serious look at you before they agree to let you mirror.
MyWorld
Executive Member
Maybe if you explained what you want to do and why we could give more informed replies?
Mr.CookieMonster
Expert Member
Okay. I want to make a website, I want to make like almost a website that has News (written by me and friends), some downloads (freeware, open source), and some other flash applications on it.
Im going to be using PHP (im learning PHP now, and this website will test my skills) to make this website.
GreGorGy
BULLSFAN
Flash! Why?
What do you mean by "some downloads" for starters? Are you going to be platform-specific? What kinds of downloads are we talking here? Games? Utilities? A mix? And when you say other flash applications, what are these and where do they come from?
stevenv
Expert Member
Still doesn't explain why you would want to host the software yourself. You could just mention the packages you recommend with links to the author's site. One or two extra clicks to download but bandwidth cost doesn't become your problem and neither do the legal ramifications.
GreGorGy
BULLSFAN
Take a look at the MacUpdate.com model. They purely list titles available for Mac OS. Millions of 'em. These listings come from developers themselves OR staff that monitor the scene. When a developer lists their software (which is recommended) they are given the option of providing the link to the software AND/OR allowing MacUpdate to host it as well.
Some stuff requires the user to supply details before they can download (for example, email etc) and those guys typically will list with a link to their own site. The repository lists freeware, shareware and commercial titles. Four basic scenarios exist:
(a) MacUpdate lists the title and links directly to the software download (the .zip or .dmg or whatever)
(b) MacUpdate lists the title and hosts the download themselves
(c) MacUpdate lists the title and links to the developer's site, where download links and methods are provided
(d) MacUpdate lists the title and provides the link to the AppStore download
In scenario (a) and (b), the onus is often on a forgetful dev to make sure that the latest version is being linked. So if he updates his software, he must remember to update the listing as well. In (b), he explicitly gives MacUpdate permission to redistribute. But that permission is limited only to MacUpdate.
In scenario (c) and (d), the most up-to-date version of the software is always available. (d) of course is a special case because it is unique to Mac titles that list on AppStore. For any software review site, I would think that (c) would be the best option. That may suit your intentions. Another scenario quite popular with GPL distributors is that a local download is provided, with the caveat that it may not be the most recent. The reasons this is done are many. The quickest example I can think of is the DeCSS libraries, which many DVD rippers make use of. If those rippers require these a separate install, linking them locally ensure they remain available.
Good luck and let us know how it goes.
Some stuff requires the user to supply details before they can download (for example, email etc) and those guys typically will list with a link to their own site. The repository lists freeware, shareware and commercial titles. Four basic scenarios exist:
(a) MacUpdate lists the title and links directly to the software download (the .zip or .dmg or whatever)
(b) MacUpdate lists the title and hosts the download themselves
(c) MacUpdate lists the title and links to the developer's site, where download links and methods are provided
(d) MacUpdate lists the title and provides the link to the AppStore download
In scenario (a) and (b), the onus is often on a forgetful dev to make sure that the latest version is being linked. So if he updates his software, he must remember to update the listing as well. In (b), he explicitly gives MacUpdate permission to redistribute. But that permission is limited only to MacUpdate.
In scenario (c) and (d), the most up-to-date version of the software is always available. (d) of course is a special case because it is unique to Mac titles that list on AppStore. For any software review site, I would think that (c) would be the best option. That may suit your intentions. Another scenario quite popular with GPL distributors is that a local download is provided, with the caveat that it may not be the most recent. The reasons this is done are many. The quickest example I can think of is the DeCSS libraries, which many DVD rippers make use of. If those rippers require these a separate install, linking them locally ensure they remain available.
Good luck and let us know how it goes.