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

Winamp Legacy player source code

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 345 posts

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#51

Post by thomastjeffery »

abtinf wrote: post #36

They are either going to have to submit a ton of DMCA requests to GitHub and get their own repo taken down by GitHub, or they will be at risk of losing their copyright and will take it off GitHub themselves. Forking is a fundamental feature of GitHub. Forking policy may only be set on private repos, but this is a public repo. The license doesn’t permit forking. There are already 6 forks. Typically, copyright is not l…

> In that case, I certainly wouldn’t want to deal with it if I was GitHub. It is a terrible user experience, where a user clicking one of the most popular buttons on the platform suddenly becomes a legal problem.

As others have mentioned, GitHub has already covered that with their ToS. All public repos may be forked.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#52

Post by abetusk »

A perversion of the term "open". The licensing terms do not allow redistribution or resale, which is a condition of "open source" (as it's commonly accepted).

Note how the title nor the repository says "open source". I would have called this source available, not that "the source is now open".

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#53

Post by amiga386 »

chrisfinazzo wrote: post #14
ndiddy wrote: post #7

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…

As @rollcat said, I suspect this means that people can contribute modifications, but that they cannot be distributed outside of the official sources. So, while you can send a patch to add a feature, you couldn't release that modified version on its own.

Didn't lame do that for years? It was distributed as a patch you could apply to the patent-encumbered MPEG "dist10" reference source code (which as far as I can see, did not even have an explicit license, the distribution only includes disclaimers of warranty)

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#54

Post by squarefoot »

xx_ns wrote: post #43
eminence32 wrote: post #12

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...

Interesting to see how would this play out in case of a lawsuit against an user who doesn't honor their license because it clashes with GH one. Anyway, that code has already been swallowed by some AI that will reorganize it, split in functional blocks and regurgitate it elsewhere someday, so too late for them to complain.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#56

Post by netsharc »

mikepurvis wrote: post #37
proto-n wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure forking the repo would create a forked version of the 'software' if the fork's sole purpose is to develop a pull request. But I guess it's somewhat ambiguous langauge, and better safe then sorry when it comes to lawyers (which I'm not).

Presumably the prohibition is around creating a forked release , with the language being intentionally a bit vague to cover their bases. Unfortunate that that's how these things are, though.

Interestingly the first line says, even distributing a modified version in source form is not allowed... so a GitHub fork with a tiny modification already violates this line.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#57

Post by vel0city »

ndiddy wrote: post #7

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…

You don't need to fork a repo to create a branch.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#58

Post by kube-system »

squarefoot wrote: post #54
xx_ns wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Interesting to see how would this play out in case of a lawsuit against an user who doesn't honor their license because it clashes with GH one. Anyway, that code has already been swallowed by some AI that will reorganize it, split in functional blocks and regurgitate it elsewhere someday, so too late for them to complain.

The GitHub ToS is not a software license. It is the terms for using the GitHub service. The penalty for breaking it is that your GitHub services might be terminated, not that they can somehow relicense your software.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#59

Post by chrisfinazzo »

amiga386 wrote: post #53
chrisfinazzo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As @rollcat said, I suspect this means that people can contribute modifications, but that they cannot be distributed outside of the official sources. So, while you can send a patch to add a feature, you couldn't release that modified version on its own.

Didn't lame do that for years? It was distributed as a patch you could apply to the patent-encumbered MPEG "dist10" reference source code (which as far as I can see, did not even have an explicit license, the distribution only includes disclaimers of warranty)

Not sure...

Someone smarter than me can answer that.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#60

Post by chrisfinazzo »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #34
chrisfinazzo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As @rollcat said, I suspect this means that people can contribute modifications, but that they cannot be distributed outside of the official sources. So, while you can send a patch to add a feature, you couldn't release that modified version on its own.

That still contradicts the license as written. > No Forking: You may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked version of the software. There is no meaningful difference between the words "patch" and "fork"; and the act of creating an edited codebase is explicitly disallowed. If that isn't what they want, then they had better write more clearly.

English is a stupid language ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Post reply on HN