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

291–300 of 371 posts

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

#291

Post by weinzierl »

nine_k wrote: post #199
jen729w wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

# 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...

This is only true for a very narrow definition of pacifism. It is the literal reading of Matthew 5:39.

But not even all Christian scholars subscribe to that definition, let alone pacifists in general. Many pacifists are perfectly ok with self-defense.

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

#292

Post by weinzierl »

Someone found a prehistoric hand axe on their property. They realize it must have been one of the nicest hand axes of its time. They decide to donate it to a museum, so everyone can appreciate that marvel of human civilization.

Being an extraordinarily nice axe, its original creator must surely have taken proper care of it and kept it clean, but over the years it clearly accumulated some dirt and a few modifications. Not wanting to damage an important historic artifact, the finder decides to leave the patina alone and donates the axe as found.

The museum requires the donor to add an exhibit label. Unfortunately, the finder being Belgian and speaking only French, there is a severe misunderstanding about the purpose of the axe.

On the day the exhibit is first shown to the public, hell breaks loose. People threaten to sue because the dirty prehistoric axe is against all regulations that apply to contemporary axes. Some attempts are made to remove the dirt, but only in a way that preserves the dirt, which enrages the other camp even more.

Ultimately, the exhibit is withdrawn from the museum, but luckily many had a chance to make copies and 3D copies that they keep safely in their private collections.

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

#293

Post by mort96 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #235
mort96 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You are confusing Open Source with Free Software . GPL family of licenses are the ones propely securing everyone's right to distribute modifications.

No, I believe you're confusing source available with open source.

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

#294

Post by [deleted] »

bombela wrote: post #232
mort96 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I guess it's readable source instead of open source.

[deleted]

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

#295

Post by gitaarik »

AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #46
belthesar wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It doesn't meet your definition of the word open. Of course they didn't know what they were doing. It was written by a 19-year-old in the mid 90s. The code is messy with poor licensing and some build tools were included in the repository and they wrote a dumb license for it? Who cares, they shipped a product that 10s of millions of people used and loved and wanted to share that code up to the world and instead of emb…

Well, I guess Winamp cares the most that they are breaking the law, because it's a risk for them. They just didn't realize but now that the community notified them about it, they wisely removed their public billboard showing they're breaking the law.

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

#296

Post by mort96 »

weinzierl wrote: post #292

Someone found a prehistoric hand axe on their property. They realize it must have been one of the nicest hand axes of its time. They decide to donate it to a museum, so everyone can appreciate that marvel of human civilization. Being an extraordinarily nice axe, its original creator must surely have taken proper care of it and kept it clean, but over the years it clearly accumulated some dirt and a few modifications.…

Isn't it more apt to say that the people who donated the axe to the museum were the same people who originally made it, and that the axe was illegal when it was made as well as today?

I may totally have missed details here, I haven't paid attention much, so please do correct me if I'm wrong

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

#297

Post by gitaarik »

freedomben wrote: post #67
arp242 wrote: post #51

The trolling was ridiculous. I don't blame them. It was pretty clear that with "fork" they meant "don't create a WinAmp-ng fork" and not a "fork" in the "send a patch" GitHub sense. It's fine to point out "hey, I think your custom written license may need a bit of work!", but the amount of vitriol and hate over it (including on HN) was just ridiculous. It was one of those moments I was embarrassed to be posting here.…

My thoughts exactly. It was shocking and appalling to me how people reacted to this effort. Instead of praising them for taking such a big step, the airwaves were saturated with people magnifying every little imperfection and shitting all over them for it. If anyone is thinking about open sourcing (and/or making source available) their previously closed app, they had better be paying attention to this. The clear mess…

They should have open sourced from the start, then such a drama would never have happened. But if you start propietary, become very popular and then open-source, you really have to be careful with what you open-source. It's just how copyright law works. And we can't just ignore the copyright law in just this one case because it's Winamp, unfortunately.

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

#298

Post by sph »

VonGuard wrote: post #135
sph wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

OK, but again, people are telling me to take code I do not own the rights to, and to release it under an open source license. That's 100% illegal. This is the equivalent of me taking a Stephen King novel and pasting it into a webpage and attaching a Creative Commons license. That does NOT make the Stephen King novel open source. It just gets me in trouble and sued. And the license matters. We're talking about somethi…

> OK, but again, people are telling me to take code I do not own the rights to, and to release it under an open source license.

Who is telling you that? Literally no one. In my original comment, the preservationist is NOT the author, as it's the author that is liable to be sued by releasing proprietary material.

In my comment, the preservationist is a third-party that should NOT be concerned with such matters, even if being forbidden by copyright law. Imagine the Internet Archive, which already operate this way, and I applaud, because the service they offer is better than if they had to respect all legal nonsense.

No one is telling you to do anything with YOUR code, and code you are legally liable for. No one is putting a pistol to your head, so I don't get why you are being so defensive to my admittedly unpopular opinion. Do whatever you want.

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

#299

Post by weinzierl »

mort96 wrote: post #296
weinzierl wrote: post #292

Someone found a prehistoric hand axe on their property. They realize it must have been one of the nicest hand axes of its time. They decide to donate it to a museum, so everyone can appreciate that marvel of human civilization. Being an extraordinarily nice axe, its original creator must surely have taken proper care of it and kept it clean, but over the years it clearly accumulated some dirt and a few modifications.…

Isn't it more apt to say that the people who donated the axe to the museum were the same people who originally made it, and that the axe was illegal when it was made as well as today? I may totally have missed details here, I haven't paid attention much, so please do correct me if I'm wrong

This is a good question and I have to admit that I have not thoroughly researched it. My understanding is that the original creators (Justin Frankel and Dmitry Boldyrev, later Nullsoft) the people who spoiled it (AOL) and the finder (Radionomy = Llama Group) are separate entities.

Most of the blame should be with the people who spoiled it, and while it doesn't excuse their deeds they are unsurprising from a historical context.

The current owners of Winamp share some blame too, but I see it more in the neglect of due diligence when they acquired Winamp and less in the release of the source. Arguably I see more incompetence (which, of course, is no defense against punishment) than malice in the later.

Finally, that the original authors kept the Winamp source clean is a reasonable and likely assumption, but as far as I know there is no 100% way to be sure.

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

#300

Post by sph »

favorited wrote: post #155
sph wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 This is not true. You can't redistribute someone else's IP without a license from the owner.

In which country? What if the owner has passed?
Post reply on HN