Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Winamp source code leak

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 338 posts

Re: Winamp source code leak

#141

Post by omega3 »

jchw wrote: post #120

I just can’t understand the point of the DMCA takedown here. This software is very dead and abandoned at this point, and the only thing bearing its name is vaporware that appears to be so distant from the original as to effectively not even compete with it. Of course, the copyright holders have every legal right to do so. But doesn’t it seem pointless? This codebase probably has more historical interest than commerci…

Not a lawyer but I guess it relates to a possibility of a loss of a trademark by failure to police.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#142

Post by thedoctor_o »

squarefoot wrote: post #66
0des wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Winamp 2 was generally preferred. If I recall correctly, it skipped version 4 not because v2 + v3 = v5 but because nobody would want to download a Winamp 4 skin. Not kidding.

If memory serves, the latest unbloated version of WinAmp was called Winamp Classic, and its versions were in the 2.9x range.

5.x is just the 2.x base continued with newer plug-ins & newer apis for those plug-ins. Unchecking things during installation (e.g. choosing the lite install) or just removing the unwanted plug-ins was always an option to make a 5.x into a comparable 2.x install.

-dro

Re: Winamp source code leak

#143

Post by artificialLimbs »

krater23 wrote: post #42
tiffanyh wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My memory is fuzzy on this but didn’t most consider Winamp 2.x the best. Winamp 3.x was considered bloated. So to help rectify the problems of 3.x, Winamp release version 5.x (the best of 2 + 3). Though I recall many still used version 2.x even after the 5.x release. Question: so when you say folks are trying to keep the "last version" alive, which version are you referring too since later versions weren’t loved.

I currently use 2.95 and see no reason to update. But I listen rarely mp3's in the last years.

>> see no reason to update

You will when you get a 4k monitor.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#144

Post by skeeter2020 »

lproven wrote: post #127
krater23 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I currently use 2.95 and see no reason to update. But I listen rarely mp3's in the last years.

Foodbar 2000 FTW. https://www.foobar2000.org/ Tiny, fast, simple, does the job. There's an Android version too, which is my go-to audio player, because of its simplicity. Both FOSS.

Haven't tried Foodbar :)

I use Foobar on my PC daily but didn't even know it was available on Android, so thanks! Musicolet is also a great Android player without all the BS (ex: can run mp3 files copied to the device with no internet connnection)

Re: Winamp source code leak

#145

Post by thedoctor_o »

lproven wrote: post #138
thedoctor_o wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fairly certain that fb2k has never been FOSS or can you point to where that's not the case as that'd be far more interesting than the point of this thread. -dro

Oh! My bad. I mistook the SDK and projectM source download links for the app itself. I apologise for the misleading comment.

Is all good.

-dro

Re: Winamp source code leak

#146

Post by tediousdemise »

jchw wrote: post #120

I just can’t understand the point of the DMCA takedown here. This software is very dead and abandoned at this point, and the only thing bearing its name is vaporware that appears to be so distant from the original as to effectively not even compete with it. Of course, the copyright holders have every legal right to do so. But doesn’t it seem pointless? This codebase probably has more historical interest than commerci…

Seems pretty pointless to me, too.

I'll make the assumption that the founders have zero financial interest in Winamp. What's the point of exerting IP rights if you have nothing to gain financially... is it pride? A latent desire to stagnate innovation? Making other peoples' lives harder because yours was too? Who knows?

Re: Winamp source code leak

#147

Post by [deleted] »

andrew_ wrote: post #114
Y_Y wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the new lead developer wanted to rewrite everything. Using all kinds of object-oriented methodologies. The older code was all C based and very simple. A tale as old as time.

Is it bad that I start hearing the Aladdin (1992) soundtrack whenever I read that line?

[deleted]

Re: Winamp source code leak

#148

Post by mderazon »

firekvz wrote: post #32
cyber_kinetist wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For context, here's the new revamped(!) Winamp coming up soon: https://www.winamp.com/ It's just... the complete opposite of what Winamp was all about, and it's horrible and leaves a bad taste in your mouth (-100 points for the atrocious "modern" website which loads MBs of Javascript, screams BIG TEXT at you, hijacks your scroll wheel, and still tells you nothing about the actual software other than it will probably…

The browser on my pixel 6 crashed, haven't seen a site lag a phone for like 2 years

Came to write this as well

Re: Winamp source code leak

#149

Post by NoSorryCannot »

Y_Y wrote: post #115
fps_doug wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the same as the Opera Presto leak a few years ago. You cannot legally maintain or update, let alone distribute it. Back then you could find a few minor patches in Russian forums but that's about it. So even if there's people capable and willing to maintain it (which for a browser I think is an order of magnitude more work), there is no easy way to have a collaboration platform that also gives the project enough…

Is this legal obstacle true everywhere? If a company stops making a breakfast cereal permanently, then I can replicate it and sell my own. Why not a browser that Opera is never going to sell again?

Copyright law will generally cannot be applied to a breakfast cereal anywhere. Patents or trademarks may apply, however, but these work differently.

Is it the same everywhere? No, but it is similar in a lot of places, due to political agreements and convergence.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#150

Post by 0des »

ConceptJunkie wrote: post #68
lelandfe wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're both right! https://web.archive.org/web/20131219003849/http://www.winamp... > What happened to Winamp 4? You're not imagining things. Yes, we skipped a version number for the following reasons: a) Winamp 5 combines the best aspects of Winamp 2 and Winamp 3 into one player. Hence Winamp 2 + Winamp 3 = Winamp 5! b) Who the hell wants to see a Winamp 4 Skin :P c) We think that a Fibonacci sequence for versioning…

So I can't imagine that the clowns that made that awful new Winamp site would be cool enough to call the new one Winamp 8. Or release a version that anyone actually wants, for that matter.

>the clowns that made that awful new Winamp

You don't have to be like that.

Post reply on HN