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

341–350 of 371 posts

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

#341

Post by bmacho »

fsflover wrote: post #326
account42 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It actually doesn't do emulation but API AFAIK.

Doing windows API is emulating windows

> In computing, an emulator is hardware or software that enables one computer system (called the host) to behave like another computer system (called the guest).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulator

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

#342

Post by tharkun__ »

nine_k wrote: post #303
weinzierl wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Certainly, not all Christians are pacifists, and not all pacifists are Christians. But, to my mind, pacifists choose to not fight back by definition, or that would be violence, so their prolonged existence is only possible because other social mechanisms hold back violence which would destroy them. Interaction with these mechanisms may be the point of holding a pacifist position: say, a monk or a nun may have a highe…

    say, a monk or a nun may have a higher moral authority because of a declared personal abstinence from any violence, and hence indirectly incentivize lay people to protect them.
To take that a step further, making the pacifist definition even narrower, wouldn't such a pacifist be a hypocrite?

Abstaining from violence at the expense of others putting themselves in harms way to protect them?

Shouldn't they try to make these "lay people" abstain from violence as well?

But then who is left to defend the pacifists?

Does that mean in the face of outside aggressors all pacifists will die soon or live horrible lives under oppression from the aggressor?

Which I guess is OK for them if they believe that something better is available for them in 'heaven'?

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

#343

Post by tcfhgj »

mort96 wrote: post #338
tcfhgj wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that Open Source isn't necessary for it, aka "open source without forking" is sufficient

There is no such thing as "open source without forking". It's source available.

I don't care how you call it.

My comment was a reply to a comment which described it this way.

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

#344

Post by nine_k »

weinzierl wrote: post #334
nine_k wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly, not all Christians are pacifists, and not all pacifists are Christians. But, to my mind, pacifists choose to not fight back by definition, or that would be violence, so their prolonged existence is only possible because other social mechanisms hold back violence which would destroy them. Interaction with these mechanisms may be the point of holding a pacifist position: say, a monk or a nun may have a highe…

"But, to my mind, pacifists choose to not fight back by definition, or that would be violence, so their prolonged existence is only possible because other social mechanisms hold back violence which would destroy them." Again, this is a valid, but narrow definition of pacifism. One that is more often found in misguided Christians who take Mathew 5:39 literally than serious scholars. The willingness for self defense do…

Mr Gandhi was smart and used the social mechanisms of the British empire. The enlightened citizens of the metropoly, with their heightened sense of fair play, would strongly disapprove of police / army brutality towards peaceful and outspoken protesters.

The classical thought experiment replaces the British Raj with a German, or, better yet, Soviet occupation administration. With them, peaceful protests spectacularly won't work, and would be insane to try.

(Right after the independence was achieved, the land descended into a brutal war that claimed 20M dead, the death toll similar to that of WWI.)

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

#345

Post by pxc »

jart wrote: post #340
pxc wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The copyright clause of the US constitution, at least, is explicit that the artifice of temporary monopoly for copyright holders exists for the benefit of society as a whole, not (supposedly) for the rightsholders themselves. The benefit for rightsholders (who are only sometimes the 'makers' anyway) is merely instrumental. It's the notion that IP is about protecting some kind of natural right that is a perversion, bo…

I agree and privilege is one of the ways you solve that. Like the privilege of being less bound to engage in survival and political struggles. Evolution produced a world where if you want something, you have to take it. Makers aren't good at taking things because they're too busy making. The natural order is that makers would be marked for deletion, which is how it was for million of years before economies came into…

I see what you're saying now. Your brief analysis has a lot in common with analyses of class conflict and progress that are common in Marxism, though with some stark differences from many as well (e.g., pessimism about the likelihood of self-conscious class activity for makers, no indication of the possibility or goal of a "makers' state" or classless society, maybe a more whiggish or teleological notion of dialectical progress than is fashionable in contemporary Marxism).

Not exactly how I see things, but insightful and concisely put. Thanks for taking the time to write it out!

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

#346

Post by sureIy »

Pet_Ant wrote: post #19
sureIy wrote: post #10

I don't really understand why people complained. The source is open, if don't want to contribute, don't. Just because something doesn't fit a specific definition it doesn't mean it's not worth of existence.

FTA: > "Winamp Collaborative License (WCL) Version 1.0.1," you may not "distribute modified versions of the software" in source or binary, and "only the maintainers of the official repository are allowed to distribute the software and its modifications." Anyone may contribute, in other words, but only to Winamp's benefit. They were basically grifters. It wasn't just a dump for preservation sake (which would be fine a…

> What was the community benefitting?

You got to look at the code. Because it was open.

It's the most literal definition of "open source". You're complaining because you can't also do whatever you want with it. So now we're back to the code being closed again. Better now?

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

#347

Post by nine_k »

tharkun__ wrote: post #342
nine_k wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly, not all Christians are pacifists, and not all pacifists are Christians. But, to my mind, pacifists choose to not fight back by definition, or that would be violence, so their prolonged existence is only possible because other social mechanisms hold back violence which would destroy them. Interaction with these mechanisms may be the point of holding a pacifist position: say, a monk or a nun may have a highe…

say, a monk or a nun may have a higher moral authority because of a declared personal abstinence from any violence, and hence indirectly incentivize lay people to protect them. To take that a step further, making the pacifist definition even narrower, wouldn't such a pacifist be a hypocrite? Abstaining from violence at the expense of others putting themselves in harms way to protect them? Shouldn't they try to make t…

Not necessarily, or even not likely a hypocrite. If keeping the ritual cleanliness is important for the monk's job, that is, having a better contact with the divine for the benefit of those around him, this is just specialization. The monk likely also abstains from other things, like eating meat, or having sex, which is a part of the same self-sacrifice for the sake of his service.

It would be hypocrisy if the monk commanded others to fight instead of him, while also declaring that he finds violence morally debasing and thus unacceptable for himself. But I don't think that laypeople would respect such a figure.

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

#348

Post by jart »

pxc wrote: post #345
jart wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree and privilege is one of the ways you solve that. Like the privilege of being less bound to engage in survival and political struggles. Evolution produced a world where if you want something, you have to take it. Makers aren't good at taking things because they're too busy making. The natural order is that makers would be marked for deletion, which is how it was for million of years before economies came into…

I see what you're saying now. Your brief analysis has a lot in common with analyses of class conflict and progress that are common in Marxism, though with some stark differences from many as well (e.g., pessimism about the likelihood of self-conscious class activity for makers, no indication of the possibility or goal of a "makers' state" or classless society, maybe a more whiggish or teleological notion of dialectic…

I don't have a horse in any race, so I aim to be descriptive rather than prescriptive in my analysis, and I make an effort to choose neutral language that will resonate with people from many backgrounds and beliefs. I'm glad you felt my analysis shared common themes with Marxism. I've studied them and know a lot about them. I also hope capitalists would find things to feel inspired about in my words too.

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

#349

Post by fsflover »

bmacho wrote: post #341
fsflover wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually doesn't do emulation but API AFAIK.

Doing windows API is emulating windows > In computing, an emulator is hardware or software that enables one computer system (called the host) to behave like another computer system (called the guest). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulator

Interesting. However WINE is not in this list: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_system_emul...

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

#350

Post by Crestwave »

dyauspitr wrote: post #117
squarefoot wrote: post #57

And here's another story to add to the book "How to shoot yourself in the foot by not knowing how the Internet and software licenses work", should anyone write that one day. Also, from one ArsTechnica link posted later in this story, one former dev told that the 4 WA Legacy developers were fired and soon he left too, so I guess they presumably had either no one or very few resources who knew that code and were in the…

[flagged]

Here's a statement from the co-author of Winamp, Justin Frankel:

> If I did have any desire, it would be extinguished by the license terms, lol. The terms are completely absurd in the way they are written, e.g. "You may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked version of the software." So arguably making any changes would be considered "creating a forked version." But even taking these terms as they are likely intended (which is slightly more permissive than how they are written), they are terrible. No thank you.

https://www.askjf.com/index.php?q=7357s

And here's a statement from one of the recent maintainers of Winamp:

> I worked at Winamp till this February. I was the one that suggested the we'd open-source all the player code that belonged to us (so stripping all the Dolby, Intel IPP, etc stuff that wasn't owned by Winamp), so that the community was free to do whatever it wanted with it. I envisioned something à la DOOM GPL release. Amongst ourselves we joked about seeing enthusiasts create a Winamp-for-your-smart-fridge or Linux port. That would have been pretty cool. Instead that proposal was repeatedly ignored by management which couldn't be convinced that this decades-old spaghetti code had nothing more than historical value. "Why would we give our IP away ?! We paid for that". As if VLC, Foobar2000, etc didn't exist ...

https://arstechnica.com/civis/threads/winamp-really-whips-op...

But sure. All the pushback is totally from "entitled shutins". Definitely people who have never even used Winamp and just want to manufacture outrage. Uh huh.

Post reply on HN