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

181–190 of 345 posts

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#182

Post by saylisteins »

thedoctor_o wrote: post #161
srockets wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

looks like both are under the same parent company Src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radionomy#List_of_properties_f...

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#183

Post by efilife »

maxerickson wrote: post #163
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.

Any public GitHub fork is being distributed.

You can't have a private Github fork

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#184

Post by simoncion »

abetusk wrote: post #52

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".

The license claims that it's a copyleft license... but it cannot be one with the distribution restrictions demanded by the license.

I hope that they either remove the claim that it is a copyleft license, or relax the distribution restrictions to something like "If you distribute modified versions of this Program, you may not call the modified versions Winamp.".

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#185

Post by otteromkram »

chrisfinazzo wrote: post #60
thomastjeffery wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)_/¯

Not really. Legalese is vague on purpose because not every situation can be rigidly defined.

As for English, because of its plain nature, I have little trouble understanding someone who isn't proficient or who has a heavy accent, whereas languages with specific infections or tones might not have that kind of liberty.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#186

Post by elpocko »

mdaniel wrote: post #153
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 ther…

Bountysource is long dead.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#187

Post by bastardoperator »

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…

Looks like someone just removed 180K lines of plugin source code from the repo too. Checkout from here: 7ce05499ff0508f9eb06f7194407f676de7d72f4

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#188

Post by [deleted] »

cormorant wrote: post #135
tsukikage wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open an issue and type your patch into the description. 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.

No, it says: "You are granted the right to Modify the software for private use only. You may make, run, and propagate Covered works that you do not Convey, without conditions, so long as your License otherwise remains in force." It's clear they don't want you distributing modified versions. The thing people are getting caught up on is "You may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked version of the software." The…

[deleted]

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#189

Post by thedoctor_o »

saylisteins wrote: post #182
thedoctor_o wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

looks like both are under the same parent company Src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radionomy#List_of_properties_f...

The history section just above the prior properties section is what's now the case with winamp & shoutcast under unrelated organisations nowadays. Though it's all a bit murky as radionomy & audiovalley were the same top people.

-dro

Post reply on HN