This is a cautionary tale for preservationists. My current preservation project is still not open because we are very slowly reviewing the code to make sure we don't accidentally include any IP when we open the source code. The real things that get you are similar to what happened here: codecs, graphics libraries, and a really big one to look out for is fonts. It'd be great if there was a scanner that could detect this stuff, but unfortunately, the scanning tools out there tend to go the other way like Black Duck: they detect open source code, not closed source.
Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
11–20 of 371 posts
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#12Here is a mirror of the repo, as of the last commit before it was deleted:
https://git.cbraaten.dev/AtRiskRepos/winamp
Also here is a git bundle file which can be cloned from:
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#13Dang... The conversations must've been really entertaining.
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#14I don't really understand why people complained. The source is open, if don't want to contribute, don't. Just because something doesn't fit a specific definition it doesn't mean it's not worth of existence.
The source wasn't open though, it was available, and it was provided in a sense that fully showcased that they did not understand what they were doing. Everything from licenses that were fully unenforceable and non-compliant with Github's license agreement to illegally distributing proprietary code to fundamentally misunderstanding how to use git.
It's one thing to provide a source available codebase. That's a choice, and it's fine for various definitions of fine. What they did was legally put themselves in hot water with the inclusion of proprietary dependencies, misrepresent what their intentions were, and likely irrevocably damage their reputation to a small, but vocal minority, who likely have a sizeable overlap with folks that know what Winamp is/was.
It's okay if none of that matters to you, or if it doesn't resonate with you, but the things that were done were comically awful in terms of sharing a codebase.
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#15We've lost a lot with the deletion of this repo. Not the code - that's already out in the ether - but the absurdist comedy of the issues, pull requests, and commit history of trying to piecemeal delete third party non-FOSS software.
sorry, but this was a real shitshow. I dont understand: wtf makes people think spamming an repo in the way they did is in any way useful?
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#16This is a cautionary tale for preservationists. My current preservation project is still not open because we are very slowly reviewing the code to make sure we don't accidentally include any IP when we open the source code. The real things that get you are similar to what happened here: codecs, graphics libraries, and a really big one to look out for is fonts. It'd be great if there was a scanner that could detect th…
I suppose it could be done, like those plagiarism databases used for academic work. Security would need to be tighter though. It's a hard thing if the source code needs to be protected I suppose.
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#17Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41662105
Winamp contained modified GPL code, violating the GPL (github.com/winampdesktop)
18 points by mepian 19 days ago | 6 comments
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#18We've lost a lot with the deletion of this repo. Not the code - that's already out in the ether - but the absurdist comedy of the issues, pull requests, and commit history of trying to piecemeal delete third party non-FOSS software.
sorry, but this was a real shitshow. I dont understand: wtf makes people think spamming an repo in the way they did is in any way useful?
The meme/troll issues were edgy teen style humor and not that funny, but the legitimate ones that tried to gently explain what rebase does and went completely ignored were funny because they felt surreal and hyperreal at the same time. Office-Space-esque comedy.
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#19I don't really understand why people complained. The source is open, if don't want to contribute, don't. Just because something doesn't fit a specific definition it doesn't mean it's not worth of existence.
FTA:
> "Winamp Collaborative License (WCL) Version 1.0.1," you may not "distribute modified versions of the software" in source or binary, and "only the maintainers of the official repository are allowed to distribute the software and its modifications." Anyone may contribute, in other words, but only to Winamp's benefit.
They were basically grifters. It wasn't just a dump for preservation sake (which would be fine as a historical artifact), they wanted to benefit. Parasitic. What was the community benefitting? They could volunteer for free to benefit a for-profit company when there are already open-source clones that do the same thing? (XMMS and it's various descendents for starters).
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#20This is a cautionary tale for preservationists. My current preservation project is still not open because we are very slowly reviewing the code to make sure we don't accidentally include any IP when we open the source code. The real things that get you are similar to what happened here: codecs, graphics libraries, and a really big one to look out for is fonts. It'd be great if there was a scanner that could detect th…
The thing is, the vast majority of graphics libraries from 1992 the IP owner no longer cares about, and the code usually has nearly zero commercial value.
I wish more were brave enough to just publish it with an open license, and then if the owner complains you take it down and rewrite.
Any damages for distributing 30 year old source code are hopefully in the single-digit-dollars range anyway.