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

291–300 of 345 posts

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#291

Post by chungy »

curtis3389 wrote: post #285
bdowling wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people who care about open source talk about "open source", they often mean the Open Source Initiative definition. https://opensource.org/osd

sigh OSI was established specifically because they just wanted to share code and didn't care about GNU's 4 freedoms, so don't be surprised when the proponents of open source give you projects you can't even fork.

OSI was established specifically because companies got queasy over free software's quasi-religious rationale behind the "four freedoms" and wanted something that sounded a lot more pragmatic while effectively being the same thing.

Don't get facts twisted, it was never "if you happen to peek at the code, it's open"; it's the full freedom backing behind it. That's exactly what the OSD is about, which was linked int the parent, if you bothered to read it.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#292

Post by codetrotter »

kadoban wrote: post #288
Novosell wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Github ToS gives users the right to fork any public repos.

It's not clear that Github's ToS can do such a thing, is it? What gives them the right to overrule the license from Winamp to me?

Because Winamp agreed to the ToS of GitHub by uploading their code to GitHub.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#293

Post by yincrash »

kadoban wrote: post #288
Novosell wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Github ToS gives users the right to fork any public repos.

It's not clear that Github's ToS can do such a thing, is it? What gives them the right to overrule the license from Winamp to me?

```Any User-Generated Content you post publicly, including issues, comments, and contributions to other Users' repositories, may be viewed by others. 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).```

Section D.5

Whoever the user that is posting the content is agreeing to the terms of service. If they don't actually have permission to agree to those terms with the content, then where that liability falls will likely fall to a court, but I'm sure I would argue as a user who forked the content, that I was given permission via the TOS which has to be followed by the user posting the content.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#294

Post by blendergeek »

Everyone is commenting on the distribution terms. But the Contributions section is just as bizzare.

> Waiver of Rights: You waive any rights to claim authorship of the contributions or to object to any distortion, mutilation, or other modifications of the contributions.

I waive the right to claim that I authored my contributions? Wait, what?

Why would I ever contribute to this project under this license?

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#295

Post by curtis3389 »

chungy wrote: post #291
curtis3389 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sigh OSI was established specifically because they just wanted to share code and didn't care about GNU's 4 freedoms, so don't be surprised when the proponents of open source give you projects you can't even fork.

OSI was established specifically because companies got queasy over free software's quasi-religious rationale behind the "four freedoms" and wanted something that sounded a lot more pragmatic while effectively being the same thing. Don't get facts twisted, it was never "if you happen to peek at the code, it's open"; it's the full freedom backing behind it. That's exactly what the OSD is about, which was linked int the…

We're probably just talking past each other. The reason GNU comes off as religious is because they frame the whole issue in terms of human rights and moral imperatives (it is wrong to hide the source and we have the right to share). OSI prefers to frame it in terms of capabilities and transactional relationships (it's a win-win!).

The OSD is compatible with GNU licenses; I've read it before. That doesn't change the reality that by reframing the issue from rights to abilities, the OSI created the very environment where Winamp can be released as "open-source" while making forking illegal.

If you want a good look at OSI's commitment to the OSD, take a look at their Open Source AI initiative: https://opensource.org/deepdive https://opensource.org/deepdive/drafts/open-source-ai-defini...

They are directly complicit in propagating the lie of open-source AI. If you can't inspect how it was made, including the actual training the data, you don't have the ability to understand how the AI was made. The choice of the lumber is part of how a chair is made.

Without the "I have the right to know what my computer is doing", there is nothing backing point 2 of the OSD. Without "I have the right to share", there is nothing backing point 1.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#296

Post by j16sdiz »

codetrotter wrote: post #292
kadoban wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear that Github's ToS can do such a thing, is it? What gives them the right to overrule the license from Winamp to me?

Because Winamp agreed to the ToS of GitHub by uploading their code to GitHub.

The legal system don't work that way.

That ToS is between wimamp and GitHub, not you.

You have to do the due diligence to get the permission from winamp.

You might be able to get away by suing GitHub and have them sue winamp. ..

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#297

Post by ronsor »

j16sdiz wrote: post #296
codetrotter wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Winamp agreed to the ToS of GitHub by uploading their code to GitHub.

The legal system don't work that way. That ToS is between wimamp and GitHub, not you. You have to do the due diligence to get the permission from winamp. You might be able to get away by suing GitHub and have them sue winamp. ..

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/third-party_beneficiary

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#298

Post by necovek »

blendergeek wrote: post #294

Everyone is commenting on the distribution terms. But the Contributions section is just as bizzare. > Waiver of Rights: You waive any rights to claim authorship of the contributions or to object to any distortion, mutilation, or other modifications of the contributions. I waive the right to claim that I authored my contributions? Wait, what? Why would I ever contribute to this project under this license?

With European copyright law, these so called "moral" rights are not transferrable: you can always claim authorship and even revoke a license if it was used in a morally reprehensible way that harms your name as an author.
Post reply on HN