Winamp Legacy player source code • Hacker News Board

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#221

Post by thomastjeffery » Tue, Sep 24, 2024, 7:07 PM UTC

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #206

thomastjeffery wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, but that's still not different. When you fork a project on GitHub, that literally creates a parallel working history, and publishes it under your username. That's what GitHub means by "fork". So what's the other definition?

Many years ago I would have called that "mirroring", which is definitely not forking.

OK, but a mirror only exists to share an exact (hopefully up-to-date) copy of the repo. So we are just moving the goalpost from the moment you create the fork to the moment you edit it. Did that really change anything? I don't think so.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#222

Post by ThrowawayTestr » Tue, Sep 24, 2024, 7:09 PM UTC

lofaszvanitt wrote: post #207

The only music player that wasn't annoying. Just did its job with a streamlined interface, without the clutter and clunky graphics that competitors thought was the way to go.

Checkout Tray Player if want a minimalist music player for Windows.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#223

Post by pessimizer » Tue, Sep 24, 2024, 7:11 PM UTC

Why did people start talking about open source in this thread? This is almost the opposite of open source, and doesn't claim to be open source. It's restrictive to the point where you should just treat it as an official source leak. It's even called "collaborative" by which they clearly mean that if you want to work on the software, you're free to send them a pull request. You're also free to compile it yourself, as long as you don't distribute it (modified or not) in any way.

Nothing wrong with this, but I don't understand why people started arguing about open source. Because you get to look at the source?

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#224

Post by favorited » Tue, Sep 24, 2024, 7:13 PM UTC

elashri wrote: post #50

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...

It is interesting that in a hypothetical scenario if someone did fork it and then thes goes to court. Which licence would take precedence here?

> Which licence would take precedence here?

There is only 1 license, and it is issued by the WinAmp copyright holders. No additional license is created by hosting a repository on GitHub. The only (extremely theoretical) issue would be between GitHub and the WinAmp folks, if GH believed that WinAmp is violating its TOS.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#225

Post by beepbooptheory » Tue, Sep 24, 2024, 7:14 PM UTC

krick wrote: post #195

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.

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…

Just an aside, but really hope "maybe you're hallucinating..." doesn't catch on in human to human speech.. Its great for the models, kinda too flattening for real discourse.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#226

Post by efilife » Tue, Sep 24, 2024, 7:14 PM UTC

thedoctor_o wrote: post #189

saylisteins wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What does -dro mean?

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#227

Post by willcipriano » Tue, Sep 24, 2024, 7:17 PM UTC

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.

Anything the owners of the Winamp code can find in order to take legal action on will be distributed. Rule 2 (and 3) is always superfluous in practice.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#228

Post by AshamedCaptain » Tue, Sep 24, 2024, 7:21 PM UTC

babypuncher wrote: post #218

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, not really. Even if you ignore DRM which practically makes ALL games from the XP-Vista era unplayable (which I ignore since that is often not better in Wine), just search around for the amount of workarounds that are required even when you apply these patches.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#229

Post by random_ind_dude » Tue, Sep 24, 2024, 7:34 PM UTC

efilife wrote: post #226

thedoctor_o wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What does -dro mean?

Look at their username.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#230

Post by londons_explore » Tue, Sep 24, 2024, 7:40 PM UTC

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…

They expect people to simply ignore the license.

And most people will.

And they won't set their lawyers on any contributors.

And the world will go on.