Winamp Legacy player source code • Hacker News Board

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#301

Post by userbinator » Wed, Sep 25, 2024, 4:42 AM 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…

Does anyone else notice the irony of enforcing a license on software whose widest use was probably to play pirated music?

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#302

Post by sakjur » Wed, Sep 25, 2024, 4:52 AM UTC

bastardoperator wrote: post #192

simoncion wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the many bad things that Github did was to name the button that does the `git clone` action `Fork`. Like, I get why they did it, but (as we can see) it resulted in this stupid terminology confusion.

A fork is a linked copy, a clone is just a copy. They are not the same. Deleting your repository or changing its visibility affects that repository's forks.

Forks predate GitHub and have another almost opposing definition that sets up for a confusion here. By that lingo forks go their own way (like a fork in the road) independently of the upstream and clones are copies of an upstream.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#303

Post by phendrenad2 » Wed, Sep 25, 2024, 4:55 AM UTC

Cool, I guess. But WinAmp is in the category of software that is easy to write, but benefits hugely from the network effect. Nobody would care about WinAmp if it weren't for the huge number of skins the community created for it.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#304

Post by xeyownt » Wed, Sep 25, 2024, 5:27 AM 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.

Indeed, and I even found better now: cmus.

Since I met this beast, I never went back to anything else.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#305

Post by npteljes » Wed, Sep 25, 2024, 5:28 AM UTC

RIMR wrote: post #214

dncornholio wrote: post #62

Earlier 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…

I share the same feelings, and I think that the way they phrased it is intentional. They are clearly capitalizing on the goodwill that is built around open source software over the years. In a "having the cake, and eating it too" kind of way.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#306

Post by lifthrasiir » Wed, Sep 25, 2024, 5:29 AM UTC

owaislone wrote: post #159

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…

I guess they mean "fork" in the broader Open Source sense when you fork something to create your own version of it and take it on a different path or do things differently like like NeoVim forked Vim. GitHub uses the term "fork" merely to create a copy of the repo for contributions.

The problem here is, of course, that the definition of "forking" is missing from the license. It is evident that two reasonable definitions for "forking" exist in this context (however you feel about Github's takeover of the term) and will continue to confuse potential contributors until fixed.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#307

Post by npteljes » Wed, Sep 25, 2024, 5:31 AM UTC

jb1991 wrote: post #69

npteljes wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was a huge fan of Winamp back in the day, but the way they handled the software completely soured me towards it. Winamp 3 was a clusterfuck, Winamp 5 was fine but felt like bloat, and then it was passed around like a hot potato, then abandoned on and off, and then the open sourcing feels like it was also around for quite some time. And now it's not even that, just a meager source-available. I know they don't owe me…

You have to place some of the blame for latter Winamp versions on AOL who purchased Winamp from Frankel's team and messed with it so much he eventually resigned.

I think selling it wasn't mandatory, and the consequences of selling are predictable, so some of the blame rest with the original decision-makers as well. But I find hard to care after so many years, if I have to be honest, they just messed with my darling too much, and I have long moved on.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#308

Post by phito » Wed, Sep 25, 2024, 5:46 AM UTC

I don't really care about the whole licensing thing, but some of the people in the issues section are being quite immature about it.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#309

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Sep 25, 2024, 6:11 AM UTC

xupybd wrote: post #272

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…

> 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.

They probably don't mean it, but the standard, intended mechanism for submitting changes with git is patches sent via e-mail.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#310

Post by trickstra » Wed, Sep 25, 2024, 6:19 AM UTC

thrashwerk wrote: post #105

What a load of BS. This is just a poor attempt at open-source-washing. They rolled their own license but couldn't be bothered to read GitHub's ToS. "collaborative" license, "opened to the community", "enabling the entire community to participate in its development", "global collaboration" but you have to grant them perpetual rights and waive your own, you're not even allowed to fork lol. Seems like they're only looki…

Is there even any development happening on Winamp? What would these unpaid workers do? If they can't touch the code, not even test it, then the only thing this repo could serve is reporting bugs, but will anyone fix them?

I feel like this whole release is just a PR stunt to remind us that winamp still exists. They don't actually want any help, nor do they want to give anything to the community. They just want to get into gossip, so the spectacular chaos with releasing certificates and 3rd-party proprietary code actually helps for publicity.