151–160 of 371 posts
The article mentions how deeply compressed the files we played were back then, but I'm pretty sure nowadays it's even worse.
Not at all. Any song on youtube uploaded in the last 5-10 years is as good as a 320 kbit mp3. Why would it be with the bandwidth anyone has to today?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Courts do not do that. The people suing would offer up a big old list of damages into the millions and then negotiate down from there to something like 6 figures AND the loser covering the court costs. The American legal system is completely broken, and amounts to two people piling up money, then the one with the bigger stack wins both stacks of money. This is completely untenable for a non-profit to even think about…
At least in the US, loser doesn't pay count costs for the opposing party.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't see the original issue, but it's interesting that the title chooses to highlight the fact that the GPL code was modified . Actually, under the GPL, this fact is immaterial. If the Winamp player contained any GPL code at all, modified or not, then it is a derivative work of that GPL code and anyone receiving a copy of Winamp is entitled to demand the full corresponding source be provided under a GPL license.
The original issue was complaining about libdiscid which is under the LGPL license not GPL. With that license, linking to an unmodified library in proprietary software is fine. What's not fine is to link to a modified library without releasing the source code for that modification. (Of course here the modification is extremely simple so some concludes this is a nothing burger.) The original poster likely knew the LGP…
But still a modification.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed it probably was inevitable, but I would be surprised if the "redo" part even happens now. Why would it? They spent their time/money giving us a gift, and we mainly just mocked them because the gift had imperfections. I wouldn't blame them for adopting a "go f*k yourself" attitude.
If it was inevitable that it was going to get taken down then it was never a gift in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. I cannot believe people are telling me to just open everything. It's nuts. Imagine if someone found your personal code and just decided to open it without your permission or knowledge!
My personal code isn't licensed, so there is nothing that stops you from doing that if you get your hands on my hard drive. What has licensing got to do with it? Also, we're not talking about personal code either, but something that is arguably a product humanity, or a part thereof, would want to preserve for posterity. Lastly, no one is telling you to open anything. I am saying that if someone decides something you…
This is not true. You can't redistribute someone else's IP without a license from the owner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GitHub doesn't provide nearly enough tools for moderation though. Like restricting issue creation, comments, and discussions to only certain folks (beyond the per-issue controls).
GitHub has the option to limit issues, pull requests and comments to not-new users, previous contributors and/or previous committers. The setting applies to a whole repository.
This, btw, is why open sourcing proprietary software rarely happens: you actually have to go to a fair amount of careful effort to get it right. If you don’t, you end up with this debacle.
Or maybe you just shouldn't break the law.
What law? The law of the Gnu?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe you just shouldn't break the law.
>shouldn't break the law. What law? The law of the Gnu?
Related: 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
I can't see the original issue, but it's interesting that the title chooses to highlight the fact that the GPL code was modified . Actually, under the GPL, this fact is immaterial. If the Winamp player contained any GPL code at all, modified or not, then it is a derivative work of that GPL code and anyone receiving a copy of Winamp is entitled to demand the full corresponding source be provided under a GPL license.
One of the reasons libraries are useful. You can replace the library in one go and if you do it right (ie, don’t replace it by the same modification process described above) the license is moot.
I worked for a company that did sales in Europe and we ran afoul of a public domain library. At the time the EU didn’t recognize PD release as a legal act. One library was easy enough to replace with a similar one, the other had no suitable peer. Luckily the library we used was small and we didn’t use much of it, but that use was important.
I wrote a bunch more unit and functional tests in our code to serve as pinning tests, then asked a lead dev on another team to write a library to replace it without referring back to the existing code. I’d stepped through it enough I could practically rewrite it from memory. I knew that wouldn’t stand up legally, but he had no reason to obsess about that part of the code. Nearly took me longer to explain the gambit to him than it did for him to complete the task once he understood it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If possible and willing to risk deletion, try to upload it on Github as well; You could have easily done this yourself, under your GitHub account in the time it took you to compose your reply (with fewer keystrokes at least). GP seems content with their self-hosted mirror.
I am away from my keyboard, is this an acceptable excuse for you? It would have taken fewer keystrokes not to compose such a hostile response, while I was just offering a suggestion to OP.
Your suggestion not only requires time on mirror operator's part, but puts their GitHub account at risk (no matter how low you consider that risk to be). From what I can see thus far - you care more for a GitHub mirror than GP - who went through the deliberate effort of setting up the mirror away from GitHub.
Edit: changed word choice to be more charitable.