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

61–70 of 345 posts

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#61

Post by CrankyBear »

revscat wrote: post #49
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…

The language is pretty clear to me. I understand what you’re saying, and suspect that this is an honest oversight on their part, but as it currently reads forks are prohibited. They may have meant something else, but what it says now is “no forking.”

They know exactly what they're doing. They're open-washing the program to get attention. It worked. As I write this, it's the number one YComb story. But, it's in no way, shape, or form open source.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#62

Post by dncornholio »

npteljes wrote: post #32
dncornholio wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody said anything about open source

Title is "Winamp Legacy player source code is now open". The usage of the word "open" in conjunction "source code" alludes to the long established "open source code" phrase, which implies a set of licenses, and the associated open source culture. A better choice for the title would have been "Winamp Legacy player source code is now available".

I agree but my statement still holds true. When something doesn't explicitly say "Open Source", it's not Open Source. This is a very old trick that i've learned decades ago..

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#63

Post by chrsw »

aflukasz wrote: post #26

"We take DirectX 9 SDK (June 2010) from Microsoft, modify it and pack to archive. Run unpack_microsoft_directx_sdk_2010.cmd to unpack it." Nice. Wonder how long will this version work?

I was surprised you're allowed to this. But I also haven't read the license.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#64

Post by thefourthchime »

I have a little history with Winamp. I wrote a popular plugin for it back in the day.

This is the source code for Winamp 3, which is a total rewrite of winamp 2 in C++. In my opinion, it was overcomplicated and over-architected. The original source code by Justin Frankel in C.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#65

Post by aidenn0 »

proto-n wrote: post #17
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…

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).

You're not allowed to "distribute" a fork, even in source form. Posting something on Github certainly smells a lot like distributing it.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#66

Post by shiandow »

elashri wrote: post #50
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...

It is interesting that in a hypothetical scenario if someone did fork it and then thes goes to court. Which licence would take precedence here?

Seems to me that it's up to you which license you use, so if one grants the right to fork then there's nothing Winamp could do to prevent that.

At best they could invalidate the one license they control, but even that seems iffy

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#68

Post by jb1991 »

thefourthchime wrote: post #64

I have a little history with Winamp. I wrote a popular plugin for it back in the day. This is the source code for Winamp 3, which is a total rewrite of winamp 2 in C++. In my opinion, it was overcomplicated and over-architected. The original source code by Justin Frankel in C.

Is Frankel's original code anywhere? I do recall him saying once that he preferred C++ over C but used C++ as simply C with classes. Frankel is a hero of mine.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#69

Post by jb1991 »

npteljes wrote: post #39
klaussilveira wrote: post #28

I can't comprehend such a restrictive license on abandonware. And from the the looks of it, not very well written abandonware.

I was a huge fan of Winamp back in the day, but the way they handled the software completely soured me towards it. Winamp 3 was a clusterfuck, Winamp 5 was fine but felt like bloat, and then it was passed around like a hot potato, then abandoned on and off, and then the open sourcing feels like it was also around for quite some time. And now it's not even that, just a meager source-available. I know they don't owe me…

You have to place some of the blame for latter Winamp versions on AOL who purchased Winamp from Frankel's team and messed with it so much he eventually resigned.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#70

Post by grishka »

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…

It feels like they wanted to make sure that no one distributes a modified "Winamp" that isn't built from the official sources, which makes sense, but they went too restrictive on it. The usual way to go about it is to say "if you want to maintain and distribute your own fork of this product, you must change the name and the logo to make sure it doesn't infringe on our branding". Telegram does this for its client apps, for example.
Post reply on HN