Yes, they can legally stop ninite from redistributing the installer using the installer license terms if they like. It's a dick move, but not illegal

But Ninite isn't redistributing the installer, is it? It's downloading it directly from Adobe's site when the user runs it, just like if the user were to manually download Flash.

That's right, we did no redistribution or modification of their software. Ninite just automates things you would do.

But, publishers can license their software under whatever terms they want. They could forbid this sort of automation in the license, or even forbid Ninite specifically by name. As far as we can tell there's no right to automate your own machine that prohibitions like that would be violating.

I think the only defense here is public backlash (thanks everyone!) and/or boycott.

> publishers can license their software under whatever terms they want. They could forbid this sort of automation in the license, or even forbid Ninite specifically by name. As far as we can tell there's no right to automate your own machine that prohibitions like that would be violating.

You're referring to the EULA, right? Is that enforceable in court? I've heard mixed opinions in the past on this topic from legal experts.

The usual issues in EULAs are either public policy concerns with particular terms, or consent issues.

I don't think either would come into play here.

I really don't see the difference between doing this and using something like SCCM to handle updates.

You are simply deploying the MSI and/or applying MSTs to the file. Configurations can be done after the package install...

If ninite cant do it, i dont see why MS/Citrix/Wyze would be able to.