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

271–280 of 345 posts

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#271

Post by Delk »

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

"Maybe you're hallucinating", let alone "let's say you're hallucinating", is a really weird take on someone thinking of a reasonable semantic distinction even if you disagree about its existence or relevance.

Perhaps you can say that to a friend as banter or in a tongue-in-cheek way, similarly to how you might say "I must be hallucinating" about yourself. But as an argument in a discussion with a stranger, it seems rather dismissive and inappropriate.

And it does reek a bit like something stolen from LLM terminology.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#272

Post by xupybd »

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…

1. Forking: The license explicitly prohibits forking. Section 5 states: "No Forking: You may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked version of the software."

2. Making changes: You are allowed to make modifications, but only for private use. Section 3 states: "You are granted the right to Modify the software for private use only."

3. Submitting pull requests: While the license doesn't use the term "pull request" specifically, it does encourage contributions. Section 4 states: "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, there's a potential conflict here. The license prohibits distributing modified versions (Section 5: "No Distribution of Modified Versions"), which could be interpreted to include submitting a pull request, as that involves sharing your modifications.

In summary, this license: - Does not allow forking - Allows modifications for private use only - Encourages contributions to the official repository - Prohibits distribution of modified versions

Given these terms, you cannot fork the code in the traditional sense. You can make changes locally for private use, and you are encouraged to submit contributions to the official repository. However, the process for doing so is not clearly defined, given the restrictions on distributing modified versions.

If you want to contribute, you would likely need to submit your changes directly to the official repository without creating a public fork. The exact mechanism for this would need to be clarified by the project maintainers.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#273

Post by badsectoracula »

nick238 wrote: post #256
derefr wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean-room_design

> 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.

The idea is to avoid accidentally copying code, though TBH i think this is some sort of legend that comes from decades ago and not really practical (nor, as the article mentions, required by law). Writing something similar alone won't make you guilty of anything, otherwise people who worked as programmers wouldn't be able to work at a different company on the same or similar field again ever.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#274

Post by justinclift »

heyoni wrote: post #269
londons_explore wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, it's not an Open Source project. So there's that. ;)

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#275

Post by s1mplicissimus »

77pt77 wrote: post #268
sumtechguy wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

oh heck yeah, that was fun times!

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#276

Post by SixtyHurtz »

unilynx wrote: post #258
SixtyHurtz wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because if I didn't have a license then that would mean I would be liable for infringement every time someone downloaded it from GH. That's exactly why GH has the TOS that it has - so that nobody can be sued for just using GH when a rights holder uploads their own work to a public GH repo.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#277

Post by DrammBA »

thedoctor_o wrote: post #251
efilife wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't be discouraged by hn folk, people like to think this is better than reddit but we have our own brand of toxic here, if you want to sign your comments go ahead

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#278

Post by efilife »

DrammBA wrote: post #277
thedoctor_o wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't be discouraged by hn folk, people like to think this is better than reddit but we have our own brand of toxic here, if you want to sign your comments go ahead

I don't have a problem with it but didn't see the reason. Was I toxic?

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#279

Post by rincebrain »

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

My local grocery store's registers made that noise when they had an error.

You can imagine how fast my head whipped around the first time I heard it.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#280

Post by abetusk »

simoncion wrote: post #184
abetusk wrote: post #52

A perversion of the term "open". The licensing terms do not allow redistribution or resale, which is a condition of "open source" (as it's commonly accepted). Note how the title nor the repository says "open source". I would have called this source available, not that "the source is now open".

The license claims that it's a copyleft license... but it cannot be one with the distribution restrictions demanded by the license. I hope that they either remove the claim that it is a copyleft license, or relax the distribution restrictions to something like "If you distribute modified versions of this Program, you may not call the modified versions Winamp.".

I completely missed that.

The license file also says that it's "free" and ensures that we have the "freedom to use it":

""" The Winamp Collaborative License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works. It is designed to ensure that you have the freedom to use, Modify, and study the software, but with certain restrictions on the distribution of modifications to maintain the integrity and collaboration of the project. """

Looks like there's already pushback in the issues section [1] [2].

[0] https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/blob/community/LICEN...

[1] https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/issues/16

[2] https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/issues/6

Post reply on HN