311–320 of 345 posts
They are either going to have to submit a ton of DMCA requests to GitHub and get their own repo taken down by GitHub, or they will be at risk of losing their copyright and will take it off GitHub themselves. Forking is a fundamental feature of GitHub. Forking policy may only be set on private repos, but this is a public repo. The license doesn’t permit forking. There are already 6 forks. Typically, copyright is not l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A fork is a linked copy, a clone is just a copy. They are not the same. Deleting your repository or changing its visibility affects that repository's forks.
Forks predate GitHub and have another almost opposing definition that sets up for a confusion here. By that lingo forks go their own way (like a fork in the road) independently of the upstream and clones are copies of an upstream.
fork() creates a new process by duplicating the calling process.
Many forks do go their own way. You can choose to pull from upstream or completely ignore it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't blame this one on English. Before the ambiguity of language can get in the way, there has to be a coherent idea that you want to express in the first place. This license explicitly contradicts itself. It says you are encouraged to contribute changes to the source, and you may not share changes to the source with anyone ever.
It seems like the intent is to encourage giving changes to exclusively the maintainer, and that forking in this context refers to distribution beyond a private communication between the change proposer and the maintainer.
I'm curious how they expect people to contribute to the project. Section 4 of the license says "Contribution to Project: You are encouraged to contribute improvements, enhancements, and bug fixes back to the project. Contributions must be submitted to the official repository and will be reviewed and incorporated at the discretion of the maintainers." However, the restrictions in Section 5 ban forking the code or dist…
Does anyone else notice the irony of enforcing a license on software whose widest use was probably to play pirated music?
There is an open source clone of Winamp called XMMS. Sonique and Foobar2000 were also venerable players of that era.
Yep, I still use XMMS. There is also qmmp[1] for a Qt based player. And I think Audacious[2] still has a classic winamp interface, although it's not the default anymore. [1] https://qmmp.ylsoftware.com/ [2] https://audacious-media-player.org/
What a load of BS. This is just a poor attempt at open-source-washing. They rolled their own license but couldn't be bothered to read GitHub's ToS. "collaborative" license, "opened to the community", "enabling the entire community to participate in its development", "global collaboration" but you have to grant them perpetual rights and waive your own, you're not even allowed to fork lol. Seems like they're only looki…
Is there even any development happening on Winamp? What would these unpaid workers do? If they can't touch the code, not even test it, then the only thing this repo could serve is reporting bugs, but will anyone fix them? I feel like this whole release is just a PR stunt to remind us that winamp still exists. They don't actually want any help, nor do they want to give anything to the community. They just want to get…
The license was always going to be restrictive & focused on what only benefits them as they would never want any clones, etc to be able to make use of it. Also the terms when I look at it from an ex plug-in dev stance seem to prevent any new / updated plug-ins from being built with the plug-in api headers which afaict would fall under their license & surplanting the prior one (no idea if they've changed the in-file stuff or not as I cannot look at their code to avoid issues with work my own player).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to place some of the blame for latter Winamp versions on AOL who purchased Winamp from Frankel's team and messed with it so much he eventually resigned.
I think selling it wasn't mandatory, and the consequences of selling are predictable, so some of the blame rest with the original decision-makers as well. But I find hard to care after so many years, if I have to be honest, they just messed with my darling too much, and I have long moved on.
Alas going to radionony which has ended up becoming llama group after some funny business stuff going on was a mistake though some of the other options that I was aware of at the time weren't great either.
And I'm not defending aol either as there were things that I didn't like under their almost 15yr tenure of ownership but it was never condescending like this lot have been over the past 11yrs which their licensing terms have reinforced.
Please also add the source for the Linux Alpha version that briefly showed face.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't be discouraged by hn folk, people like to think this is better than reddit but we have our own brand of toxic here, if you want to sign your comments go ahead
I don't have a problem with it but didn't see the reason. Was I toxic?
I'm curious how they expect people to contribute to the project. Section 4 of the license says "Contribution to Project: You are encouraged to contribute improvements, enhancements, and bug fixes back to the project. Contributions must be submitted to the official repository and will be reviewed and incorporated at the discretion of the maintainers." However, the restrictions in Section 5 ban forking the code or dist…
Does anyone else notice the irony of enforcing a license on software whose widest use was probably to play pirated music?