Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 371 posts

Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks

#191

Post by kolme »

Jenk wrote: post #81
bscphil wrote: post #54

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.

> 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. That's just not true, surely? Lest everyone using any flavour of Linux is liable to the same problem? How many apps out there are…

> Lest everyone using any flavour of Linux is liable to the same problem?

If by that you mean, if you are using Linux in production servers: You may use GPL software in a commercial setting. The source code part only applies if you are distributing software that contains GPL code.

Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks

#192

Post by enedil »

bscphil wrote: post #54
fsflover wrote: post #17

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.

I think the point here is that so that people reading the article don't complain about "they didn't contain GPL code directly" somehow justifies thinking that that was bikeshedding and not a legitimate violation of the license. Of course, it does not matter if the code was modified or not, but that point might not be clear to the readers who don't have enough experience with GPL.

Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks

#193

Post by jraph »

zizee wrote: post #170
jraph wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't open source anything though. They shared some code under some restrictive license.

The "chilling" effect is still the same.

I hope companies will also recognize that by actually open sourcing their stuff and be more careful, things will go better.

Of course the childish comments that seem to have been posted on github were probably not great, I think people should be respectful, so maybe the additional lesson here is that github, by trying hard to become a social network and not focusing on being a code host and issue tracker, succeeded in being a social network, with the whole package, attracting this kind of shitty behavior, and that's one more reason to avoid it now. You wouldn't upload your code on a social network, would you?

If you don't want cooperation or forks, a zip anywhere will do.

Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks

#195

Post by [deleted] »

Calavar wrote: post #162
AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK why do I care about how the OSI defines a word which predates the existence of the OSI by over 1000 years?

Not all definitions are created equal (you seemed to imply that yourself when you said "It doesn't meet your definition of the word open") and the OSI definition is widely considered the de facto standard. Of course no definition is perfect, so if you have specific issues with the OSI definition of open source, go ahead and explain them and your suggested alternative. Otherwise you are making an argument that's impos…

[deleted]

Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks

#196

Post by nine_k »

armada651 wrote: post #33
delfinom wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The troll issues are exactly why my OSS group does not use GitHub at all. It's become a toxic platform for quite awhile.

That's just the reality of any platform that doesn't gatekeep who gets to participate. Eventually assholes are going to join, that's simply unavoidable.

Putting anything to a public environment, always assume an actively hostile environment. No matter how many well-meaning users you may have; if it's more then a handful, there will always be enough jerks who would try to ruin the show for everyone.

To my mind, premoderation is the way. Any new user's submissions go to the premoderation queue for review, not otherwise visible. Noise and spam can be rejected automatically. More underhanded stuff gets a manual review. All rejections are silent, except for the rare occasion of a legitimate but naive user making an honest mistake.

What's passed gets published. Users who passed premoderation without issues for, say, 10 times, skip the human review step, given that they've passed automatic filters, so they can talk without any perceptible delay. The most trusted of them even get the privilege to do the human review step themselves %)

Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks

#197

Post by fluoridation »

mikeortman wrote: post #58

It's wild to nitpick the licensing like this. I get why its conter-intuitive and in violation of Github's guidelines, but it's winamp, folk. It has no intrinsic value these days to update or fork outside of giving people the opportunity to learn from the tricks they had to do to make stuff work. There are solutions significantly better and open source today. 'Canceling' winamp in 2024 was not on my life's bucket list…

>It's wild to nitpick the licensing like this.

It's not a nitpick, the library was self-contradictory. It claimed to be copyleft while not allowing distributing modified copies by anyone other than the rights holder.

>There is hypocrisy here around internet archive, it's totally OK to store copy-write content on the archive, but its not OK when a company does so on their own.

That's right, because it was the company that broke their contract with their vendor by making publicly available source code when they didn't have permission to do that. If that software vendor has a problem with the IA they can issue a DMCA request.

Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks

#198

Post by ezekg »

fluoridation wrote: post #181
fooqux wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other thing we lost is that future companies will think again before making their code public. It's already such an incredibly rare thing in the wild, but now companies and their lawyers will see that Winamp was exposed to potentially lawsuitable behavior that wouldn't have come to light had they never opened the code.

All of this happened because the company didn't want to open source the code, they wanted to openwash it and get free labor from the open source community. If another company wants to do the same and they decide not to because of this, nothing of value is lost.

> they wanted to openwash it and get free labor from the open source community.

This is such a ridiculous accusation. Why do discussions about source-available models often turn into accusations of soliciting free labor? Why can't authors just provide access to source code, but reserve some or all of the distribution rights? It's their code, after all. Nobody is forcing 'the open source community' to contribute under the terms set forth; anybody who does contribute does so under their own free will, under the terms set forth by the license.

It doesn't always have to be a binary choice between open source and closed source, nor does it justify further accusations of "openwashing."

Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks

#199

Post by nine_k »

jen729w wrote: post #163
armada651 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just the reality of any platform that doesn't gatekeep who gets to participate. Eventually assholes are going to join, that's simply unavoidable.

# Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism > Good online communities die primarily by refusing to defend themselves. > Somewhere in the vastness of the Internet, it is happening even now. It was once a well-kept garden of intelligent discussion, where knowledgeable and interested folk came, attracted by the high quality of speech they saw ongoing. But into this garden comes a fool, and the level of discussion drops a little…

Pacifism only works if there is someone who can protect the pacifist.

In the Christian religion, God ultimately protects the virtuous pacifists by putting them in Heaven, away from bullies. In an online forum, there's no transcendental force to render such a service, so...

Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks

#200

Post by jccalhoun »

EmilyHughes wrote: post #138
jfvinueza wrote: post #109

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?

I think the poster is confusing/conflating dynamic range compression with file compression
Post reply on HN