Haven't thought about converting FLAC files to mp3 in a while. Hell yeah Winamp
Why convert? Winamp plays FLAC natively.
Winamp Legacy player source code
211–220 of 345 posts
Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#212Open 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…
> but the language is curious because they explicitly welcome contributions and for a project hosted on Github the standard way to do that is to "fork" the project into your own account.
It's because techies instead of lawyers wrote it. The first and second restrictions overlap anyway, as it says you can't distribute a modified version in the first restriction, but then can't distribute a forked version in the second restriction. I'm not sure what the difference is, and courts don't like redundancy and will often invent reasons to interpret the phrases as meaning something different.
I got a $15 parking ticket recently and got it dismissed after I contested the ticket on the basis that the way the city regs were written, they used both "parking spot" and "parking area" and thus "parking area" cannot be synonymous with "parking spot," which altered the meaning of the reg they used to ticket me.
Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#213Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
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..
Well, the description in the Repo says this:
>its source code was opened to the community
I find it hard to believe that any serious person would argue that "code that is open to the community" ≠ "open source code".
I think it's realistic to assume that the developers who wrote the README, and the lawyers who wrote the license didn't talk to each other much when making decisions about how much freedom users were going to have with the code.
Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#215[deleted]
Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Contract law doesn't really allow for this kind of behavior. If you say over and over again that your software is open source and the community is free to develop with it as they please, and then write your license to say the opposite, you're going to have a hard time enforcing the license given that you're actively telling people to violate the terms in your press release.
Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#217Open 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
IANAL but doesn't that basically show they are OK with forks?
Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
Windows executables mostly work forever. Especially if they were widely distributed. If Winamp is broken on Windows N+1, it's Windows that is broken. If Winamp is broken on Wine, it's Wine that is broken.
May have been true 20 years ago. But these days it is not hard to find a game which works in Wine but not Windows. And DirectX is often the reason.
I think this is largely only true with Windows games from the '90s using still-nascent 3D apis. Many of these games were broken on modern versions of Windows by the time Vista came out.
Once you get to the early '00s, you can still find a lot of games that are broken, but the culprit is usually changes in hardware and driver behavior rather than Windows itself.
Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copyleft just means you lose license privileges and revert to unlicensed copyright rules when violating its terms. There's no reason you can't use that principle in a more restrictive way than GPL.
That's not at all what copyleft means. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html
That's the FSFs spin. Ultimately GPL is a promise not to pursue an entity for copyright violation without the need for a signed contract. That promise is revoked when you disobey the copyleft.
Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#220If you want a free copy of the SHOUTcast server software, they illegally share that code in their repo ..
Hit that download button while it hasn’t been force-push cleared.
Even if it's force pushed, it's too late as long as there are forks.
See:
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41060102
- https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/issues/19#issuecomme...