Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's WWII all over again with switched roles, and hacktivits DDOSed archive.org
What in the world does that sentence even mean in this context?
[flagged]
Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
311–320 of 371 posts
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#312Earlier quoted context omitted.
Might be another person than the one making the calls. It is abit sad that they messed up the licensing. It would be fun nostalgia to run the 'real' Winamp on Linux. Native. Emulation does not count.
Wine Is Not Emulator.
And this image does not depict a pipe: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/MagrittePipe....
Giving WINE (originally WINdows Emulator) a cute backronym does not change the definition of the word emulator or whether Wine is one. Please check your favorite dictionaries for that.
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you willingly ignoring the Internet Archive which is exactly doing that, and is not a for-profit operation? We need more of those, agreed, but it makes no sense saying "no one is doing that."
No, I am not ignoring them. I know Archive very well. They do not preserve copyrighted content deliberately, it just gets uploaded, and when no one comes and complains it stays up. They remove things ALL the time. All of the Atari 2600 games from Atari itself, for example. Atari's current owners showed up and asked Jason to take those down, and he did. And he thanked them for the privilege and said they were very nic…
[deleted]
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#314"Proprietary packages from Intel and Microsoft were also seemingly included in the release's build tools" Can anyone speak to this? To me, it's the most interesting bit in this article. Does this mean Winamp developers had access to libraries of Intel/MS that are not publicly available?
Could this be the random installers that were present in a folder of the repo? They had some C++ installers and I think a random Intel driver in there...
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it more apt to say that the people who donated the axe to the museum were the same people who originally made it, and that the axe was illegal when it was made as well as today?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 historica…
> and I have to admit that I have not thoroughly researched it
So basically anything you say is speculation?
Im going to add my own unfounded speculation by claiming that the original winamp source did actually contain licence violations which is why the project was never re-released after being acquired by AOL.
Only after buying the project did AOL realise that the code wasn't usable as-is, so it needed further investment to rewrite and replace all the violations, and since at that point the value of local media-players was quickly diminishing they just let it be.
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is wrong. Permissively licensed (MIT, BSD, WTFPL, Apache, etc.) free software is still free software. Open-source requires the provision of the same right to distribute modified copies as free software does. Copyleft licenses like the GPL assert the same right recursively for downstream users, more or less (details vary between copyleft licenses). But granting the right (to distribute modified copies) to first-o…
Ah yes the totally unbiased OSD made by companies wanting to exploit free labor like Amazon. I dislike prescriptivist language. I will continue calling things open source whenever I can see the source code, no matter the license.
> Ah yes the totally unbiased OSD made by companies wanting to exploit free labor like Amazon.
The OSD does not originate with Amazon. Its ideas and text are drawn from the free software movement and indeed from a not-for-profit, volunteer-driven, community-based project-- namely Debian. Its text is essentially lifted from the Debian Free Software Guidelines. The term 'open-source' was created to describe an effort by a commercial entity, though-- for the project that would eventually give us Firefox, at a time when the web was dominated by a deeply proprietary monopoly in Internet Explorer.
But all of this should be common knowledge among 'hackers'. At any rate it is extremely easy to discover.
> prescriptivist language
Talk about knowing enough to be dangerous! lol.
> I will continue calling things open source whenever I can see the source code, no matter the license.
Okay? You are successfully resisting being nagged about your use of terms. You are also broadcasting your ignorance of the giants whose shoulders software developers stand upon today.
Software, like many things that can satisfy human needs and wants, is an instrument and mechanism of power. In particular, software and the terms under which it is distributed are often a mechanism by which the software publishers exert power and control over the software's users. 'Open-source', like its more frank ancestor 'free software', exists to signal terms of software distribution that variously protect users from certain strategies of domination by software vendors. Historically (and recently!), that signal associated with the phrase 'open-source' has been a fairly clear (if simplistic) one, because the phrase's usage has been consistent.
When you choose how you will or won't use the phrase 'open-source', you are making a choice about how useful a signal that phrase will be for such purposes in the future. What language is 'correct' in this case gets at a practical and political question we can alternatively get at without any commitment or appeal to a notion of linguistic correctness. That question is this: should there be ready ways to identify terms of software distribution that seek to spare software users from domination by software suppliers?
If one's answer to that is 'yes', then it takes a bit of footwork to get to 'I intend to participate in applying this established safety label to unsafe things'.
> calling things open source whenever I can see the source code
This kind of behavior is arguably a predictable outcome of the strategy of distancing the licensing tactics of the free software movement from that movement's explicit politics, articulations of its on motivations, etc.
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#317Anyone have a mirror of it?
See this one:
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#318This story is analogous to a landowner and a group of neighborhood kids. The landowner allows the kids to play baseball in his field, but then the kids complain the grass is not cut, they are playing late into the evening, a few kids vandalize damage his flower bed, and his lawyers tell him he will be sued if he doesn't make all these safety changes, and so the landowner says screw it and puts up a fence.
Sort of. In this case, as other posters have mentioned, the "landlord" did some questionable things.
Agreed. How about the "landlord" expected the kids to cut the grass and weed the gardens house for use of the field, and only allowed them access on certain days and times.
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#319We'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.
We never had the code actually. That code is of no use to me without a proper license.
Even without a license, this at least allows people to archive it before it is lost completely.
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see any credibility to the claim that 'BlackMeta' were/are in fact hacktivists. Do you have any reason to repeat that?
You can scroll their X page and it's extremely clear that they're focused on the Gaza war ( https://x.com/Sn_darkmeta ) and they openly state that they attacked the Internet Archive because it was based in America which supports Israel ( https://x.com/Sn_darkmeta/status/1844358501952618976 ). We can quibble about whether a "hacktivist" group can even exist at all or if it's a convenient lie the Internet has collectiv…
I don't have a Twitter account, so I can't generally scroll on someone's page to see anything chronological-ish. :-\
(I remember trying at the time of the incident and having less success than now.)
Thanks for sharing the direct link to that video. At the time of the initial outage, I only saw some assertion that they were 'a hacktivist group' on some article on Bleeping Computer, and at the same time the only reason they'd claimed for the DDoS was 'because we could'. Hacking something just because you can is, of course, not doing hacktivism.
If these people are sincere, they are idiots in their propaganda strategy and artless in their 'hacktivism'... but definitely hacktivists.
But tbh this seems too stupid and ill-directed to me to be anything other than a false flag operation. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Either way, thanks for the additional context!