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

261–270 of 345 posts

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#261

Post by EchoReflection »

486sx33 wrote: post #236
beepbooptheory wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

“…maybe you’re hallucinating…” and “…I must be hallucinating…” Have been part of human to human communication since the 60s, when people in fact could very seriously have been. It continued on for acid flashbacks and other surreal moments

I've used LSD a few times, but to my knowledge never had any "acid flashbacks". Maybe that's for the best... but seems like it might be fun if one was in a safe environment.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#262

Post by tnh »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #221
AshamedCaptain wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can Zeno's-paradox-away the distinction between a bathtub and a kitchen sink, but that doesn't make them the same thing.

This sort of argument change how people understand words, and it also doesn't change how lawyers interpret laws nearly as often as people think. It's still fun, though!

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#263

Post by lucideer »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #131
lucideer wrote: post #21

Earlier 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.

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.

While I did make the point that "copyleft" is not a protected term & therefore can have many definitions, I've never heard your definition & it's certainly not the widely accepted one.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#264

Post by lucideer »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #219
deathanatos wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> That's the FSFs spin

This implies your take on copyleft is an adversarial one, in which case implying your definition is canonical is disingenuous.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#265

Post by neycoda »

mrgoldenbrown wrote: post #146
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...

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.

A fork is a copy of a repo at a certain version. A copy of the files of the repo without the .git folder is effectively a fork. Either way, their terms contradict what GitHub allows.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#266

Post by lacedeconstruct »

davidpfarrell wrote: post #89

The best thing we can do for the future of the project is to NOT engage with the project at this time ... Even just cloning the project into your private workspace to review / compile is giving more engagement than their current licensing stance warrants. I'll check again when an HN post comes out stating they've changed their licensing stance - Until then, closing this tab and forgetting about it ...

The author justin frankel (also wrote reaper the DAW absolute legend) had this to say about it

> Question: Now that WinAMP's source has been officially released, do you have any desire to hack new badass features in?

Answer: If I did have any desire, it would be extinguished by the license terms, lol. The terms are completely absurd in the way they are written, e.g. "You may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked version of the software." So arguably making any changes would be considered "creating a forked version." But even taking these terms as they are likely intended (which is slightly more permissive than how they are written), they are terrible. No thank you.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#267

Post by rzzzt »

mihaaly wrote: post #238
grandpoobah wrote: post #129

You know what source code I'd like to see? ICQ and MSN and/or Windows Messenger.

Uh oh! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iCPIUGnHQ8

This is a Worms sound effect as well, right? Does it come from a sound library? (I feel like I have watched a video about this at some point, but if there isn't one, there should be.)

Edit: HN search gives me this short thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11289591

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#268

Post by 77pt77 »

sumtechguy wrote: post #232
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.

> without the clutter and clunky graphics Wasnt one of the fun things with that player putting random skins on it? Or am I thinking of a different one?

Yes.

And also fancy graphical visualizations of the music.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#269

Post by heyoni »

londons_explore wrote: post #230
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.

That’s not good enough. You can’t put out an open source project and expect to control the community around it to that degree.
Post reply on HN