231–240 of 371 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the point of 'open source' where you're not even allowed to fork the damn repo?
In case of security sensitive software, you could verify the security claims. Look at Apple, they claim E2EE, but don't even allow to verify that defeating the purpose of E2EE entirely (lack of need to trust the provider)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, this seems to be a misunderstanding of the license text and the author's intent. The original license simply reserved all distribution rights. People assumed you couldn't even fork into a public GitHub repo in order to make pull requests, but afaict, the author clarified that the intent was not to prevent forking on GitHub, but to prevent redistribution of the forked software instead of contributing the change…
How the hell do you combine "open source" and "all distribution rights are reserved for the original developer"? That's a nonsensical combination, the whole point of open source is that you can make your own copy with your own changes and distribute it to people
We'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.
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.
We'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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, this seems to be a misunderstanding of the license text and the author's intent. The original license simply reserved all distribution rights. People assumed you couldn't even fork into a public GitHub repo in order to make pull requests, but afaict, the author clarified that the intent was not to prevent forking on GitHub, but to prevent redistribution of the forked software instead of contributing the change…
How the hell do you combine "open source" and "all distribution rights are reserved for the original developer"? That's a nonsensical combination, the whole point of open source is that you can make your own copy with your own changes and distribute it to people
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Simple. Because the company literally wrote this in their press release[1] at the time they were releasing it.
Direct quote “This is an invitation to global collaboration, where developers worldwide can contribute their expertise, ideas, and passion to help this iconic software evolve.”
Further direct quote: “With this initiative to open the source code, Winamp is taking the next step in its history, allowing its users to contribute directly to improving the product.”
They are literaly soliciting free labor.
This is how the press release ends: “Interested developers can now make themselves known at the following address: about.winamp.com/free-llama” what is that if not a solicitation for free labour?
> anybody who does contribute does so under their own free will, under the terms set forth by the license
So wait. Just so I understand. Is your problem that you think they are falsely accused of soliciting free labour? Or that they are indeed fully were soliciting free labour but you would rather not want people harsh your vibes by discussing this?
1: https://www.llama-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-...
Good job, team. Companies are sure to open source their legacy proprietary applications now after that warm reception.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gotta remind them that censorship is what governments do. Nobody is forced to associate with them.
That is not true. Censorship is the suppression of expression. Full stop. Anyone who controls a medium can do it. Only the U.S. government can violate the First Amendment to the Constitution. People often conflate the two. That censorship and First Amendment violations are one and the same. They are not. And the reason the U.S. government saw fit to restrict its ability to censor its public is because they recognized…
Dang rate limited my HN account because I got into too many controversial discussions. Arguments just like this one. Did I call him out for censorship? No. I asked him to keep it rate limited. Because the truth is sometimes I see things and I just have to reply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Completely incorrect. This work is being done under a non-profit, and whether or not the original owners care is irrelevant. Doing this would immediately open the non-profit to litigation and endanger the entire project. Just because we don't think anyone cares doesn't mean we won't get sued. This project is preserving the source code around a distributed chat system from the year 2000, the E programming language, an…
The Windows NT 4 source code exists in multiple public repos on GitHub, and the one from the first Google result has been there for at least four years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, this seems to be a misunderstanding of the license text and the author's intent. The original license simply reserved all distribution rights. People assumed you couldn't even fork into a public GitHub repo in order to make pull requests, but afaict, the author clarified that the intent was not to prevent forking on GitHub, but to prevent redistribution of the forked software instead of contributing the change…
How the hell do you combine "open source" and "all distribution rights are reserved for the original developer"? That's a nonsensical combination, the whole point of open source is that you can make your own copy with your own changes and distribute it to people