41–50 of 345 posts
Source-available but certainly not open source. "You are granted the right to view, access, and study the source code of the software. You are granted the right to Modify the software for private use only." "No Distribution of Modified Versions: You may not distribute modified versions of the software, whether in source or binary form." "No Forking: You may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked version of the…
Nobody said anything about open source
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for sharing. Wonder if they've ever heard of color contrast. Dark blue on dark blue is not very readable. Had to highlight the article to read it.
I'm not seeing that colour combination -- are you sure you don't have Dark Reader or some such add-on enabled..?
Open sourcing is always good, because maybe you can learn some things by reading it. Also, Winamp Legacy is a fairly important piece of software, so having an archive of its source is a great thing. But the restrictions on the source are interesting. To quote the license file: * No Distribution of Modified Versions: You may not distribute modified versions of the software, whether in source or binary form. * No Forki…
> By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories (this means that others may make their own copies of Content from your repositories in repositories they control).
[1] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...
I'm curious how they expect people to contribute to the project. Section 4 of the license says "Contribution to Project: You are encouraged to contribute improvements, enhancements, and bug fixes back to the project. Contributions must be submitted to the official repository and will be reviewed and incorporated at the discretion of the maintainers." However, the restrictions in Section 5 ban forking the code or dist…
Note that you can't test or debug your patch, because that would mean creating a modified version of the codebase, which is prohibited. Just type that stuff straight in, directly from your fever dreams, unmediated by common practice. If it's good enough for the license, it's good enough for the code.
"source code is open" implies "open source", and the License refers to itself as a "copyleft" license, but it's a newly minted license - IANAL does anyone know if this is open source or another Elastic type situation?
man, at first glance doesnt look like a lot of work to add support to linux.
see also see https://winamp.com/player/legacy and https://about.winamp.com/press/article/winamp-open-source-co...
The second link is a 404
Open sourcing is always good, because maybe you can learn some things by reading it. Also, Winamp Legacy is a fairly important piece of software, so having an archive of its source is a great thing. But the restrictions on the source are interesting. To quote the license file: * No Distribution of Modified Versions: You may not distribute modified versions of the software, whether in source or binary form. * No Forki…
They may have meant something else, but what it says now is “no forking.”
Open sourcing is always good, because maybe you can learn some things by reading it. Also, Winamp Legacy is a fairly important piece of software, so having an archive of its source is a great thing. But the restrictions on the source are interesting. To quote the license file: * No Distribution of Modified Versions: You may not distribute modified versions of the software, whether in source or binary form. * No Forki…
This seems to go against GitHub's own ToS[1]: > By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories (this means that others may make their own copies of Content from your repositories in repositories they control). [1] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...