Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look at their username.
So this is like a signature? Under every comment? Why, if we all have usernames?
It's just a habit I have when I'm replying to things so I'll try to remember to avoid doing it on here.
Winamp Legacy player source code
251–260 of 345 posts
Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#252Funny, 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...
Ha! They've been quickly pulling some other things in the last hour or two, like a bunch of files with this header... * Copyright 2000-2002 Dolby Laboratories, Inc. All Rights * Reserved. Do not copy. Do not distribute. * Confidential information. * * (C) copyright Fraunhofer - IIS (1998) * All Rights Reserved
Is there a copy of the original repository available anywhere?
I wonder if it can even build.
Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#253Earlier 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…
[dead]
Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#254Earlier 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.
> Oracle bought MySQL and ruined it
By "ruined" you must mean "solved decades-long issues and turned it into a real database", or we're talking about two different projects.
https://dev.mysql.com/blog-archive/the-complete-list-of-new-...
https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.4/en/mysql-nutshell.html
Do note that the largest users (like GitHub and Facebook) still use the original MySQL, and AFAIK have no plans to abandon it.
Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 goin…
They've worded it just as they intended imho (ignoring the confusion over fork aspect) as it's how to ensure that they're still in charge & to prevent anything derivative as they really don't like that based on prior experience with them.
It's also mostly about getting that lovely free dev work because with oh so many capable devs out there they're just going to be clamouring to want to give up anything where possible to be able to work on this along with trying to appear to be doing good. Even though they've halted development at least 3 times I'm aware off & ditched a number of dev teams under their 11yr tenure of ownership.
Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
They know exactly what they're doing. They're open-washing the program to get attention. It worked. As I write this, it's the number one YComb story. But, it's in no way, shape, or form open source.
Well, it's at least slightly more open than e.g. Microsoft's source-available repositories, let alone leaked proprietary source; as you do have the freedom to e.g. read the Winamp source code and then ground-up reimplement a Winamp-alike program , without their lawyers coming after you. (Orgs like ReactOS don't let people contribute if they've ever read code from a Microsoft source-available repos, lest ideas inspire…
I thought reading closed-source code is a very bad idea, as if you wind up writing something similar, then you're possibly guilty of copyright infringement. If you have one team look at the design, catalog the features, and describe how it works in detail, then you can have another team implement it, and you're on legally much better ground (unless patents):
Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any public GitHub fork is being distributed.
Is forking a well defined term? Doubt it will hold up in court.
They don't give permission, so the lack of definition doesn't really matter.
If they were trying to grant a narrow permission and then enjoin someone they thought was outside of their definition, it would matter (But they just aren't giving permission to distribute modified versions).
Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no conflict here. The quote from Github's ToS means you allow others to copy the source code you've made public, it cannot and does not give you any rights regarding what you do with the code beyond that. Points one and two of the Winamp license quote are essentially one and the same, just worded in a different way for clarity.
The GitHub ToS states: > If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking). You may grant further rights if you adopt a license. If you are uploading Con…
> If I create a fork of a public repo on GH, I require a license to distribute it because a public repo can be forked or downloaded by anyone
Why?
The users that clone or fork your fork of the original repository are covered by the original repository's "license" GitHub grants itself, not yours.
Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#259Re: Winamp Legacy player source code
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ha! They've been quickly pulling some other things in the last hour or two, like a bunch of files with this header... * Copyright 2000-2002 Dolby Laboratories, Inc. All Rights * Reserved. Do not copy. Do not distribute. * Confidential information. * * (C) copyright Fraunhofer - IIS (1998) * All Rights Reserved
Is there a copy of the original repository available anywhere? I wonder if it can even build.
They didn't remove anything it's still available in the history