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

331–340 of 371 posts

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

#331

Post by pjc50 »

VonGuard wrote: post #25
londons_explore wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, the vast majority of graphics libraries from 1992 the IP owner no longer cares about , and the code usually has nearly zero commercial value . I wish more were brave enough to just publish it with an open license, and then if the owner complains you take it down and rewrite. Any damages for distributing 30 year old source code are hopefully in the single-digit-dollars range anyway.

Completely incorrect. This work is being done under a non-profit, and whether or not the original owners care is irrelevant. Doing this would immediately open the non-profit to litigation and endanger the entire project. Just because we don't think anyone cares doesn't mean we won't get sued. This project is preserving the source code around a distributed chat system from the year 2000, the E programming language, an…

As the video games people know, piracy is preservation and preservation nearly always requires "piracy". It's very clear from the way the Internet Archive works that pre-emptively taking a copy without permission is the only way to guarantee that copies actually exist.

> You are literally suggesting that we take proprietary, copyrighted code and release it under an open source license with no standing, rights, or ownership. It's insane to even suggest this. If you put the source code for Windows 95 online, you'd be sued into a pile of ashes by MS within 10 minutes.

Yeah, legal preservation efforts will probably never get that. The torrent is still out there if you just want to look at it, though.

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

#332

Post by pavel_lishin »

catlikesshrimp wrote: post #328
FactKnower69 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I suspect the author is thinking back to more than ten years ago. Yes, "good ol' days" types will always move the goalposts further and further back when you point out that things were exactly the same in the mythical time period they want to return to

There were days when internet search engines had operators and really showed results, not "relevant" SEO. Botnets weren't a thing, either.

But OP was talking about humans' behavior toward each other - I'll grant that SEO-spam maybe falls under that, but I don't think that Google's leadership fucking up search results is the same.

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

#333

Post by rasz »

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…

> this effort

revealing Winamp was breaking GPL and several commercial licenses.

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

#334

Post by weinzierl »

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…

"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 does not preclude pacifism at all.

A good example is Mahatma Gandhi who is widely recognized as a pacifist, yet argued that it is better to fight than to be a coward in the face of injustice.

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

#335

Post by weinzierl »

legacynl wrote: post #315
weinzierl wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inve…

"So basically anything you say is speculation?"

No, just that it might not be the complete picture.

Until the original source from the Nullsoft days surfaces, we do not know, and certainly should not make unfounded speculations.

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

#336

Post by [deleted] »

benatkin wrote: post #121
Calavar wrote: post #7

We'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.

[deleted]

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

#337

Post by egoisticalgoat »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #259
pugets wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why restrict the definition to political censorship? Surely there are such things as academic censorship, religious censorship, etc.

Because none of those things have the force of law backing them. Academic censorship? Start your own journal and publish there. Religious censorship? Start your own church and gather your followers. Forum censored you? Start your own website where they have zero say about anything and write about whatever you want. Government censorship? You are screwed, and you go straight to jail if you try to break free and start…

Because not everyone who can write an academic article also has the ability to establish and run an entire publishing business. Just because they technically could doesn't mean they realistically can.

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

#338

Post by mort96 »

tcfhgj wrote: post #330
mort96 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do that with source-available software too, I'm not sure where you think open source comes in?

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.

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

#339

Post by sangnoir »

chii wrote: post #279
sangnoir wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

GitHub, naturally.

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

#340

Post by jart »

pxc wrote: post #281
jart wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a great idea, because law and policy are designed to privilege makers rather than takers. It's a subversive degenerate kind of morality to argue that things belong to the people who desire to consume them.

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 being that could support them. Since we know that life is good for everyone when stuff gets made, society is better off as a whole when it goes out of its way to support its makers, since giving makers more means they'll make more. OTOH if you lift up takers they'll just use it to take more.

The greatest most successful takers all know this, which is why many of them become philanthropists. Since there's not much point being a taker if there's nothing left to take. Once you've taken everything, the only way you can take more is by getting makers to make more. The supreme takers also set up things like governments, which claim dominion over all the makers and punish all the little takers who try to take from them. The little takers of course weep and wail about why the makers get a special set of rules, but that's where they get it wrong, because rather than being angry at the makers, the little takers should be modeling themselves after the supreme takers.

In modernity, the set of rules that the supreme takers put in place hundreds of years ago to protect the makers included things like intellectual property. However those rules are just that, arbitrary rules, and they don't cover up the underlying reality of what they sought to accomplish, which is privilege. If those rules don't work anymore, then the system will simply do something else to achieve its goals, which include elevating the universe to a higher state of existence and creating a better life for everyone.

Post reply on HN