[deleted]
Winamp Legacy player source code
191–200 of 345 posts
Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
On Github. Doesn't give them a license to fork it to their workstation.
One of the many bad things that Github did was to name the button that does the `git clone` action `Fork`. Like, I get why they did it, but (as we can see) it resulted in this stupid terminology confusion.
A fork is a linked copy, a clone is just a copy. They are not the same.
Deleting your repository or changing its visibility affects that repository's forks.Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
You also can’t run the code.
Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#194Open 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 person who set the license is also accepting PR's from forks. https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/pull/7
The confusion and disorganization is hilarious
Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#195Earlier 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.
Let's say you are hallucinating "two distinct meanings of fork". Unless you are referring to tableware, a fork is a fork, it's any distribution of a software, based on the software in question. The fact that most forks on GitHub serve only operational purpose, nobody actively maintains them and nobody normally uses them instead of the parent project, doesn't change what they are: a distributions for (potentially, and unless PR is accepted, actually) distinct software projects, based on a project they are forked from. You are just so used to the button and the process, you lost track of what the label on that button actually means, why it's called "a fork". And the answer is, well, because it's a fork. In no way it is different from starting a MariaDB project. As soon as you press that button, you are distributing your own software, based on that parent software. If the parent project disappears, or moves on, or never accepts your PR, which somebody really likes, other people can (and probably will) use your fork in a way that isn't any different than, well, any larger and "more obvious" fork.
So, essentially, winamp license means nothing. They already forfeited their right to deny you forking by posting it on GitHub.
Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
The typical way of copying a project for your own personal use on GitHub involves publishing that copy on GitHub. So, it is a real fork—maybe not a well maintained one, or one that the author is particularly excited about, though!
Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#197I 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…
One of the earlier examples of enshittification, before the process had been smoothed out and best practices established.
Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah the license self-refers as "copyleft" (an unregulated term afaik), and they have been very careful to avoid usage of the term "open source" rather preferring to say things like "the source is open". Regulated or not the use of "copyleft" still seems deliberately misleading to me - I don't think the restrictions you've listed are in line with the intent of the copyleft movement.
While "copyleft" is just a word like any other word, and subject to the same descriptivist drift as any other, in this case it is a specific word coined by a specific org, with a pretty specific definition. One that this license does not meet.
Frankly, copyleft is MORE permissive than generic bullshit weasely term "open source" (thanks to corp-friendly ESR). The fact they try to avoid using "open source" but willingly use the more "free as in freedom" word "copyleft" is a bit distressing.
I'm tired of this whole "shared source" movement, it's disingenuous, and ruins the spirit of actual open source (let alone "copyleft").
Boo on Winamp. Shame. I'm still using 5.666 until I die. I won't use their newer stuff, because it's clear they're not doing it with love but just trying to find another captive market of nostalgia nerds.
Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#199Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#200Earlier 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.
Is forking a well defined term? Doubt it will hold up in court.