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

271–280 of 371 posts

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

#271

Post by throwaway2037 »

KetoManx64 wrote: post #205
ezekg wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Didn't the original version of their license state that you weren't allowed to do anything with the code, including forking it? It was "source available" but you're not even allowed to make a local copy of the code to look at it. People as a whole don't mind source available, Louis Rossman's FUTO's software is all source available and while they got a small minority of FOSS diehards complaining about it, they're doin…

I was not aware of the FUTO license. I found it here: https://gitlab.futo.org/keyboard/latinime/-/blob/master/LICE...

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

#272

Post by pxc »

People are talking about the issues opened on GitHub as 'trolling' but honestly the license Winamp chose is itself an insult. From the license text via the Internet Archive:

> The Winamp Collaborative License is a free, copyleft license

also from that license text:

> 5. Restrictions

> No Distribution of Modified Versions: You may not distribute modified versions of the software, whether in source or binary form.

Which means that the Winamp Collaborative License is neither free nor copyleft.

What copyleft actually is:

> Copyleft is a general method for making a program (or other work) free (in the sense of freedom, not “zero price”), and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html

Releasing proprietary software is whatever. 'Shared source' and similar dilutions are one level of bullshit. Abusing and diluting the language of the free software movement is a step beyond that.

This kind of 'open-source' is actively harmful to an exceptional degree and absolutely deserves to drown in ridicule. A lot of the mocking issues were unfocused or low-effort, but I can't really complain about their function or intent.

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

#273

Post by pxc »

delfinom wrote: post #31
Calavar wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The meme/troll issues were edgy teen style humor and not that funny, but the legitimate ones that tried to gently explain what rebase does and went completely ignored were funny because they felt surreal and hyperreal at the same time. Office-Space-esque comedy.

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

What does your OSS group have to do with this Winamp release, which was not OSS?

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

#274

Post by zizee »

consteval wrote: post #221
zizee wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "chilling" effect is still the same.

Right, and what we're "chilling" is using software in a way not consistent with its license. That's good, IMO. Don't steal IP and you don't have to worry about getting caught for stealing IP. FYI: simply hiding the code doesn't fix the issue - disgruntled employees and whistleblowers do exist.

Given the wide variety of views expressed in this HN discussion, it's clear there isn't consensus on how this is being interpreted, so I think you're wrong in claiming that there is only one type of behaviour being discouraged.

That said, I'm just as a casual observer lying in bed with the flu, I probably should just shut up until I know more the situation.

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

#275

Post by harry8 »

hulitu wrote: post #153
kccqzy wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original issue was complaining about libdiscid which is under the LGPL license not GPL. With that license, linking to an unmodified library in proprietary software is fine. What's not fine is to link to a modified library without releasing the source code for that modification. (Of course here the modification is extremely simple so some concludes this is a nothing burger.) The original poster likely knew the LGP…

> Of course here the modification is extremely simple so some concludes this is a nothing burger But still a modification.

the point here is to solve the problem of linking to an LGPL licensed library, to comply you can:

a) release the code of the original LPGL licensed library

b) release it with a patch of any modifications, ie the small change here

c) nothing else. zero. No license changes. No other code of the app affected. No app code needs to be released.

And you are compliant with the LGPL license and can get on with life. So this is not a big deal the way GPL code in the app would be which would require the app code to be re-licensed and released to comply, which is a huge deal and difficult to accomplish.

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

#276

Post by pxc »

AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #124
Calavar wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't meet your definition of the word open. That's a disingenuous argument. It doesn't meet the OSI's definition of open. > the community piled on them until they said it was so not worth it that just pulled the whole thing. Yes, but let's be honest: If it wasn't the community, it would have been DMCA takedown requests from the companies whose software was published in the repo. At best, the community hastene…

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

The term open-source was coined with an express purpose closely aligned with the definition maintained by the OSI. The OSI also traces its lineage to the coinage of the term; all of the coiners endorse the OSD.

Anyone can read about this here: https://opensource.org/history

But it's well-documented elsewhere, too.

The term 'open-source' is political, as much as it aimed to 'depoliticize' free software. Its definition is and always has been normative rather than merely descriptive. The term and concept exist to serve a movement, and anyone who is invested in that movement's goals is likely to be invested in promoting a historically informed understanding of both.

As for why you, specifically should care about the concept, I think I don't have the patience to make the case right now. But if you're genuinely interested in that question, I'd be happy to provide links to resources if you let me know what sorts of media you enjoy/have energy for.

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

#277

Post by shiroiushi »

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?

Obviously you've never listened to SiriusXM.

But seriously, the poster is probably complaining about how most modern music is heavily compressed in dynamic range, so that it sounds better on crappy earbud headphones and smartphone speakers.

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

#278

Post by ipaddr »

consteval wrote: post #219
ipaddr wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming they know, care and want to spend resources writing a DMCA request.

You have to issue a DMCA, because if you don't defend your own IP then courts will assume you don't care about your IP.

That's more trademark. You can choose to let anyone use your ip for a fee or not.

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

#279

Post by chii »

sangnoir wrote: post #50
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.

> Eventually assholes are going to join, that's simply unavoidable. To repurpose an old aphorism: Moderation is key to avoiding assholes running rampant on your platform.

who would have to pay for the moderation of github?

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

#280

Post by chii »

ezekg wrote: post #243
krisoft wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do discussions about source-available models often turn into accusations of soliciting free labor? 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…

My point is simple: if someone contributes, they accept the terms. Complaining about ‘free labor’ is irrelevant. The contributor chose to contribute; if they didn’t agree with the terms, they wouldn’t have. Nobody is asking for an uninvolved third-party to police the collaboration. I'd also be careful attributing these actions to malice without further motive, when it very well could also be attributed to excitement…

> attributing these actions to malice without further motive

these actions could be construed as malice, but i would definitely attribute them as greed. AKA, they want contributions, but want to prevent anyone else but themselves from being able to commercially exploit it.

Post reply on HN