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

151–160 of 345 posts

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#151

Post by aantix »

Back in the summer of 1999 while I was in college, we were the first house to use MP3's at our parties. Most houses used a CD disc shuffler which usually consisted of a bunch of scratched and smudged discs, so their music skipped all the time.

We went all digital. We were ahead of our time.

The parties were in the basement. We'd lock the computer up in a spare bedroom - ran the wires and speakers out to the main basement area.

We used Winamp on shuffle.

Hours of music without a single skip, without us having to babysit the music.

Thank-you Winamp for the great memories.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#152

Post by stuaxo »

For anyone who wants to support a proper legacy I recommend backing the WACUP project.

It's based on the winamp3 code, that Winamp did open source, and then the closed source parts are being re implemented.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#153

Post by mdaniel »

factorialboy wrote: post #79

F yeahhhhh ... the player that never crashed, even if Windows OS crashed all around it This is more significant (to me) than the iPhone 16 launch, I'll pay for people who can port this to Linux (Gnome) and Mac OS.

Barring the ton of licensing stupidity ongoing (maybe they'll fix it, who knows), as far as I know you could actually do that by forking the repo and then connecting your fork to bountysource. Open an issue for each target OS, set the amounts, and then publicize that fact on as many social media channels as you have access to

However, I wanted to draw your attention to "are you asking the right question" because there's a very real chance that the things you actually love about Winamp would not carry over to any such ports, since it's not "recompile and get the Winamp on Windows experience" - they would be Gnome and macOS apps, behaving similar to other such apps

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#154

Post by srockets »

sionisrecur wrote: post #134

Funny, the latest commit is "Removing code which is not open"[0], which means they are infringing on someone else's licensing terms by keeping it in the git history. [0] https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/commit/0a4b7d32d0906...

Based on https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/issues/11 it's their own code, just a different service they didn't decide to release the source for.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#155

Post by thomastjeffery »

mrgoldenbrown wrote: post #146
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...

There are two distinct meanings of fork and you are conflating them I think. I suspect winamp's license is using the sense of the (pre GitHub) idea of creating a distinct version of a project maintained by a different group, and the GitHub ToS specifically refers to forking within the GitHub platform.

What is the other meaning of fork?

When you click "fork this repo" in GitHub, that clones the repository, and re-publishes it under your username.

When you clone a repo to your system privately, that does not involve publishing. If this is their intended meaning of "fork", then this license must explicitly disallow cloning the repo!

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#156

Post by z3t4 »

CrankyBear wrote: post #61
revscat wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think this is a great license as it allows you to download the code, make modifications, create "pull requests", etc, but you are not allowed to compete, or distribute it with a virus baked in. That way the maintainers have full control and don't have to worry about hostile takeovers, or people making profits without contributing.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#158

Post by skeaker »

IgorPartola wrote: post #112
trehalose wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This part of the ToS explicitly does grant such a license to other GitHub users. > If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking).

As written, this says that you can fork a repo but can’t then clone it and work on it on your own machine. Isn’t software licensing fun?

Interesting. I guess you could just stick to the Github web editor to stay compliant? Really a terrible way to go about things though

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#159

Post by owaislone »

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…

I guess they mean "fork" in the broader Open Source sense when you fork something to create your own version of it and take it on a different path or do things differently like like NeoVim forked Vim. GitHub uses the term "fork" merely to create a copy of the repo for contributions.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#160

Post by fooqux »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #155
mrgoldenbrown wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two distinct meanings of fork and you are conflating them I think. I suspect winamp's license is using the sense of the (pre GitHub) idea of creating a distinct version of a project maintained by a different group, and the GitHub ToS specifically refers to forking within the GitHub platform.

What is the other meaning of fork? When you click "fork this repo" in GitHub, that clones the repository, and re-publishes it under your username. When you clone a repo to your system privately, that does not involve publishing. If this is their intended meaning of "fork", then this license must explicitly disallow cloning the repo!

> What is the other meaning of fork?

The older, still in use today meaning is what happened when Oracle bought MySQL and ruined it. People forked it and now we have MariaDB. Basically, it means a fork in the code base and now there are two separate projects.

Post reply on HN