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

161–170 of 345 posts

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#161

Post by thedoctor_o »

srockets wrote: post #154
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.

llama group / "winamp" don't own shoutcast anymore as that was all sold off a year or so ago to azerion as part of changing audiovalley into llama group.

-dro

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#162

Post by happyweasel »

aantix wrote: post #151

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 base…

> Back in the summer of 1999 [..] > We went all digital. We were ahead of our time.

Well I had a DAT recorder in 1993. Even a DAT walkman.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#163

Post by maxerickson »

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.

Any public GitHub fork is being distributed.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#164

Post by mikepurvis »

derefr wrote: post #147
netsharc wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In a very specific technical sense, it could be argued that it doesn't — the data for GitHub forks (i.e. their branches and the commits of such) is actually stored within the base repo forked from . In other words, by forking something on Github, you're not distributing anything; rather, the original org is now distributing an additional thing you made — your fork branch[es]. This is the source of many confusing thin…

This implementation choice has always felt a bit odd to me, almost like premature optimization. Is there a reason to have done it this way other than storage deduplication? Since git is already a content-addressed store anyway, how hard would it have been to have some kind of abstraction below the repo layer that would provide the same deduplication?

At this point there's obviously huge inertia in Github's early architectural decisions, but if you were building Github today, would it still make sense to go this route?

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#165

Post by simoncion »

fooqux wrote: post #160
thomastjeffery wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes.

Until Github came along, "Creating a copy of software for your own personal use" had never been widely-accepted definition of the word "fork" in the context of software development. Forking a project has always involved independent publication and maintenance of said project.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#166

Post by acuozzo »

synergy20 wrote: post #118

sorry but why does old winamp code still matter? there are plenty open source audio libraries these days along with different open source players.

It's a fun diversion to browse around old codebases, especially those of software you once used extensively.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#167

Post by simoncion »

grishka wrote: post #70
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…

> ...but they went too restrictive on it.

I bet that they would disagree with you. This is an "all rights reserved" "source available" license. Given the redistribution restrictions, their assertion that it is a "copyleft" license is clearly false.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#168

Post by johndhi »

Simply reading the word "Winamp" brings back a nostalgia for me almost like smelling the perfume of an old girlfriend.

Spent so many hours looking at my custom Winamp skin and playing songs I'd downloaded from god-knows-where...

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#169

Post by kjhcvkek77 »

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!

In particular I think you may press the fork button on the github repo as per github rules. However, you are not allowed to make any commits to this new repo.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#170

Post by deathanatos »

dncornholio wrote: post #72
blue_cadet_3 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their official blog post does https://winamp.com/press/winamp-open-source-code

It does not. It open-source only in it's URL which has no semantic value if you read the article.

And the license itself states,

> The [license] is a free, copyleft license

And then proceeds to not be a free, copyleft license.

This pretty clearly seems like they're trying to squat on the terms "copyleft" "free software" and "open source" while weasel-wording their way out of it — "open washing", as someone else in the comments called it, seems to fit. This smacks of someone who wants to use the words, and to have you feel like they've used the words, but without having to actually do the things the words would mean, spoken genuinely.

Post reply on HN