[HN Gopher] Winamp Legacy player source code
___________________________________________________________________
Winamp Legacy player source code
Author : gjvc
Score : 567 points
Date : 2024-09-24 14:27 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| timvdalen wrote:
| What happened here? Did someone buy the rights to the original
| Winamp? The linked site doesn't look very related to the original
| Winamp.
| stefanos82 wrote:
| Here you go https://about.winamp.com/press/article/winamp-open-
| source-co...
| itslennysfault wrote:
| Thanks for sharing. Wonder if they've ever heard of color
| contrast. Dark blue on dark blue is not very readable. Had to
| highlight the article to read it.
| shrikant wrote:
| I'm not seeing that colour combination -- are you sure you
| don't have Dark Reader or some such add-on enabled..?
| reportgunner wrote:
| I also don't see the bugged light mode until I allow 3rd
| party scripts on the website in uBO
| lucideer wrote:
| Looks like a bug in their light theme - it's using the dark
| theme's background. There's a theme toggle top-left to
| switch to the still-functioning dark theme.
|
| Guessing they probably started with a light theme then
| retrofitted a dark theme & rolled it out without realising
| it would regress the existing light theme.
| stefanos82 wrote:
| Coincidentally, I thought it was this bug that bit you; it
| was reported a couple of days ago
| https://github.com/mui/material-ui/issues/43823
| justinclift wrote:
| Oh great. Yet another bunch of people trying to claim their
| not-at-all-Open-Source custom license is actually Open
| Source.
|
| Hopefully one day they'll _actually_ Open Source it. I mean,
| they 're trying to pretend it is, so why not just do it
| properly?
| gjvc wrote:
| see https://winamp.com/player/legacy or
| https://about.winamp.com/press/article/winamp-open-source-co...
| jollyllama wrote:
| Awesome, that's far more interesting than the new implementation,
| which doesn't include the batch media transcoding for exports to
| mp3 players.
| ndiddy wrote:
| 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 distributing modified versions.
| This means that the standard Github "fork the repo, make your
| changes in a branch, and send a pull request" workflow for
| submitting changes would violate the license.
| 0x0 wrote:
| I guess you could format a diff patch file locally and paste it
| as a text comment in an issue in their repo...? :P
| chrisfinazzo wrote:
| As @rollcat said, I suspect this means that people can
| contribute modifications, but that they cannot be distributed
| outside of the official sources.
|
| So, while you can send a patch to add a feature, you couldn't
| release that modified version on its own.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| That still contradicts the license as written.
|
| > No Forking: You may not create, maintain, or distribute a
| forked version of the software.
|
| There is no meaningful difference between the words "patch"
| and "fork"; and the act of _creating_ an edited codebase is
| explicitly disallowed.
|
| If that isn't what they want, then they had better write more
| clearly.
| chrisfinazzo wrote:
| English is a stupid language -\\_(tsu)_/-
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| 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.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| 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.
| otteromkram wrote:
| Not really. Legalese is vague on purpose because not
| every situation can be rigidly defined.
|
| As for English, because of its plain nature, I have
| little trouble understanding someone who isn't proficient
| or who has a heavy accent, whereas languages with
| specific infections or tones might not have that kind of
| liberty.
| sramsay64 wrote:
| There is in other areas of copyright law, like romhacks and
| action replay codes. Romhacks seem like a very grey area
| but generally don't get DMCAed when they distribute large
| binary patch files of the original roms. And "Lewis Galoob
| Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc." would imply that
| the dead simple 16 byte[0] "patch files" in the form of
| game genie codes are legal.
|
| To take a more practical example. Is there no meaningful
| difference between the dwm multimon patch files[1] and the
| full forked repo[2]? For context, lots of suckless software
| keeps extra features/addons in semi-offical out of tree
| patches files. The philosophy of suckless is generally to
| hardcode config options in source code and recompile
| instead of editing .rc files. This reduces the complexity
| of the code, so you end up with some very minimalistic easy
| to patch recompile and code. So it's a natural (if very
| esoteric) way of implementing plugins.
|
| Obviously this is a bit contrived because all the suckless
| code is actually open source, so none of this matters to
| them. But I think it's fair to say that distributing the 7
| .patch files at [1] wouldn't count as distributing a forked
| version of dwm. The patch files contain some context lines
| ripped straight from the main codebase, but not the main
| repo. Hell I'd even wonder if there's some kind of fair use
| argument for patch files. After all, often they boil down
| to a criticism of the codebase, saying that it's bad
| because it contains all the lines of code starting with '-'
| signs and really would be better if it had these extra
| lines of code after the '+' signs.
|
| The license doesn't seem contradictory to me. Counter-
| intuitive, unclear, and paradoxical (in the most general
| sense of the word), yes. But not contradictory.
|
| [0] Looks like the longest codes are 32 digits of hex long:
| https://archive.org/details/GameGenieSNESCodebookProgrammin
| g...
|
| [1] https://dwm.suckless.org/patches/multimon/
|
| [2] https://github.com/garybgenett/.dwm
| amiga386 wrote:
| Didn't lame do that for years? It was distributed as a patch
| you could apply to the patent-encumbered MPEG "dist10"
| reference source code (which as far as I can see, did not
| even have an explicit license, the distribution only includes
| disclaimers of warranty)
| chrisfinazzo wrote:
| Not sure...
|
| Someone smarter than me can answer that.
| Spivak wrote:
| Because there are two definitions of fork. One is the button
| that says fork in Github which is really cloning the repo into
| your account. Then there is fork meaning "fork the project"
| which is actively developing and distributing an alternative
| lineage of the project, likely under a different name. You can
| use Github's PR workflow, it's fine.
|
| Github is the one with the unfortunate naming here that goes
| against the already established meaning of fork. It really
| should be clone.
| Novosell wrote:
| The Github ToS gives users the right to fork any public repos.
| wang_li wrote:
| On Github. Doesn't give them a license to fork it to their
| workstation.
| simoncion wrote:
| One of the many bad things that Github did was to name the
| button that does the `git clone` action `Fork`.
|
| Like, I get why they did it, but (as we can see) it
| resulted in this stupid terminology confusion.
| bastardoperator wrote:
| 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.
| otteromkram wrote:
| Fork, then clone. Simple as.
| tsukikage wrote:
| Open an issue and type your patch into the description.
|
| Note that you can't test or debug your patch, because that
| would mean creating a modified version of the codebase, which
| is prohibited. Just type that stuff straight in, directly from
| your fever dreams, unmediated by common practice. If it's good
| enough for the license, it's good enough for the code.
| cormorant wrote:
| No, it says: "You are granted the right to Modify the
| software for private use only. You may make, run, and
| propagate Covered works that you do not Convey, without
| conditions, so long as your License otherwise remains in
| force."
|
| It's clear they don't want you distributing modified
| versions. The thing people are getting caught up on is "You
| may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked version of
| the software." They fail to define "forked" but they don't
| seem to have meant an undistributed modification.
| vel0city wrote:
| You don't need to fork a repo to create a branch.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| If the permissions on the repo (in GitHub, not git) are such
| that you lack permission to create branches, then you must
| first clone (local git terminology) / fork (hosted on GitHub
| terminology) the repo so that all the permissions are yours.
| owaislone wrote:
| I guess they mean "fork" in the broader Open Source sense when
| you fork something to create your own version of it and take it
| on a different path or do things differently like like NeoVim
| forked Vim. GitHub uses the term "fork" merely to create a copy
| of the repo for contributions.
| londons_explore wrote:
| They expect people to simply ignore the license.
|
| And most people will.
|
| And they won't set their lawyers on any contributors.
|
| And the world will go on.
| heyoni wrote:
| That's not good enough. You can't put out an open source
| project and expect to control the community around it to that
| degree.
| justinclift wrote:
| Well, it's not an Open Source project. So there's that. ;)
| xupybd wrote:
| 1. Forking: The license explicitly prohibits forking. Section 5
| states: "No Forking: You may not create, maintain, or
| distribute a forked version of the software."
|
| 2. Making changes: You are allowed to make modifications, but
| only for private use. Section 3 states: "You are granted the
| right to Modify the software for private use only."
|
| 3. Submitting pull requests: While the license doesn't use the
| term "pull request" specifically, it does encourage
| contributions. Section 4 states: "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, there's a potential conflict here. The license
| prohibits distributing modified versions (Section 5: "No
| Distribution of Modified Versions"), which could be interpreted
| to include submitting a pull request, as that involves sharing
| your modifications.
|
| In summary, this license: - Does not allow forking - Allows
| modifications for private use only - Encourages contributions
| to the official repository - Prohibits distribution of modified
| versions
|
| Given these terms, you cannot fork the code in the traditional
| sense. You can make changes locally for private use, and you
| are encouraged to submit contributions to the official
| repository. However, the process for doing so is not clearly
| defined, given the restrictions on distributing modified
| versions.
|
| If you want to contribute, you would likely need to submit your
| changes directly to the official repository without creating a
| public fork. The exact mechanism for this would need to be
| clarified by the project maintainers.
| rollcat wrote:
| Eh, here we go again, there's yet-another custom license, "Winamp
| Collaborative License (WCL) Version 1.0". Quick skim:
|
| > No Distribution of Modified Versions: You may not distribute
| modified versions of the software, whether in source or binary
| form.
|
| > No Forking: You may not create, maintain, or distribute a
| forked version of the software.
|
| It's basically "look but do not touch". I don't see why this was
| necessary for something that's basically abandonware by now, and
| is mostly of historical interest.
| jjordan wrote:
| Lawyers.
| qrush wrote:
| This really whips the llama's ass
| eminence32 wrote:
| Open sourcing is always good, because maybe you can learn some
| things by reading it. Also, Winamp Legacy is a fairly important
| piece of software, so having an archive of its source is a great
| thing.
|
| But the restrictions on the source are interesting. To quote the
| license file: * No Distribution of Modified
| Versions: You may not distribute modified versions of the
| software, whether in source or binary form. * No Forking:
| You may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked version of
| the software. * Official Distribution: Only the
| maintainers of the official repository are allowed to distribute
| the software and its modifications.
|
| I'm guessing the "No Forking" clause means I can't release my own
| media player based on this source code, but the language is
| curious because they explicitly welcome contributions and for a
| project hosted on Github the standard way to do that is to "fork"
| the project into your own account.
| proto-n wrote:
| I'm not sure forking the repo would create a forked version of
| the 'software' if the fork's sole purpose is to develop a pull
| request. But I guess it's somewhat ambiguous langauge, and
| better safe then sorry when it comes to lawyers (which I'm
| not).
| eminence32 wrote:
| I agree; your interpretation is reasonable and plausible. But
| it's disappointing to have this ambiguously, since the
| license file has a whole section for "Definitions" and yet it
| fails to define what "forking" means in this context.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Presumably the prohibition is around creating a forked
| _release_ , with the language being intentionally a bit vague
| to cover their bases. Unfortunate that that's how these
| things are, though.
| netsharc wrote:
| Interestingly the first line says, even distributing a
| modified version in source form is not allowed... so a
| GitHub fork with a tiny modification already violates this
| line.
| derefr wrote:
| In a very specific technical sense, it could be argued
| that it doesn't -- the data for GitHub forks (i.e. their
| branches and the commits of such) is actually stored
| _within the base repo forked from_.
|
| In other words, by forking something on Github, _you 're_
| not distributing anything; rather, _the original org_ is
| now distributing an additional thing you made -- your
| fork branch[es].
|
| This is the source of many confusing things about the
| security of GH forks; and the source of some recent GH
| vulnerabilities.
|
| Also, if you're curious, this isn't a meaningless
| "implementation-level distinction", as it has semantic
| implications for repo management: it means that the
| branch attached to a PR coming from a fork repo
| _continues to exist in the base repo_ , even if the fork
| repo that that branch originated from gets deleted.
| Because that branch was _always_ "in" the base repo to
| begin with; the PR just changed the branch's GH ACLs to
| make it accessible to the owners of the base repo.
|
| (Really, the "fork repo" itself is an illusion -- it's
| like a SQL view. There's only the base repo, which
| contains both regular branches, and user-fork-namespaced
| branches. This is in part why forks can't be private;
| they're just a view of resources in another repo, already
| security-controlled by that other repo; so they can't
| have their own additional security logic acting on those
| same resources!)
| mikepurvis wrote:
| This implementation choice has always felt a bit odd to
| me, almost like premature optimization. Is there a reason
| to have done it this way other than storage
| deduplication? Since git is already a content-addressed
| store anyway, how hard would it have been to have some
| kind of abstraction below the repo layer that would
| provide the same deduplication?
|
| At this point there's obviously huge inertia in Github's
| early architectural decisions, but if you were building
| Github today, would it still make sense to go this route?
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| GitHub's fork feature works outside of git itself. It
| does not utilize the .git directory, and therefore does
| not utilize git's deduplication.
|
| _EDIT_ : Oh, I see what you mean. It would definitely be
| interesting to solve this namespace conflict problem from
| inside git. I wonder how many times meta-branches (or
| something similar) have been advocated for.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| You're not allowed to "distribute" a fork, even in source
| form. Posting something on Github certainly smells a lot like
| distributing it.
| lucideer wrote:
| Yeah the license self-refers as "copyleft" (an unregulated term
| afaik), and they have been very careful to avoid usage of the
| term "open source" rather preferring to say things like "the
| source is open".
|
| Regulated or not the use of "copyleft" still seems deliberately
| misleading to me - I don't think the restrictions you've listed
| are in line with the intent of the copyleft movement.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Copyleft just means you lose license privileges and revert to
| unlicensed copyright rules when violating its terms. There's
| no reason you can't use that principle in a more restrictive
| way than GPL.
| deathanatos wrote:
| That's not at all what copyleft means.
|
| https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| That's the FSFs spin. Ultimately GPL is a promise not to
| pursue an entity for copyright violation without the need
| for a signed contract. That promise is revoked when you
| disobey the copyleft.
| lucideer wrote:
| > _That 's the FSFs spin_
|
| This implies your take on copyleft is an adversarial one,
| in which case implying your definition is canonical is
| disingenuous.
| lucideer wrote:
| While I did make the point that "copyleft" is not a
| protected term & therefore can have many definitions, I've
| never heard your definition & it's certainly not the widely
| accepted one.
| deathanatos wrote:
| While "copyleft" is just a word like any other word, and
| subject to the same descriptivist drift as any other, in this
| case it is a specific word coined by a specific org, with a
| pretty specific definition. One that this license does not
| meet.
| wormius wrote:
| Frankly, copyleft is MORE permissive than generic bullshit
| weasely term "open source" (thanks to corp-friendly ESR).
| The fact they try to avoid using "open source" but
| willingly use the more "free as in freedom" word "copyleft"
| is a bit distressing.
|
| I'm tired of this whole "shared source" movement, it's
| disingenuous, and ruins the spirit of actual open source
| (let alone "copyleft").
|
| Boo on Winamp. Shame. I'm still using 5.666 until I die. I
| won't use their newer stuff, because it's clear they're not
| doing it with love but just trying to find another captive
| market of nostalgia nerds.
| bityard wrote:
| > No Forking
|
| Amusing; there are already 6 forks on GitHub as of this
| writing.
| edm0nd wrote:
| Now 52 forks on GitHub. Thug life.
| flykespice wrote:
| 72 now
|
| This is like a park having a sign on the corner telling you
| to not step on the grass because it is privately owned but
| people go and make picnic there anyway
| xx_ns wrote:
| This seems to go against GitHub's own ToS[1]:
|
| > By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree
| to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories (this
| means that others may make their own copies of Content from
| your repositories in repositories they control).
|
| [1] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-
| terms/github-t...
| elashri wrote:
| It is interesting that in a hypothetical scenario if someone
| did fork it and then thes goes to court. Which licence would
| take precedence here?
| shiandow wrote:
| Seems to me that it's up to you which license you use, so
| if one grants the right to fork then there's nothing Winamp
| could do to prevent that.
|
| At best they could invalidate the one license they control,
| but even that seems iffy
| otteromkram wrote:
| > Which licence would take precedence here?
|
| Whichever one runs up the attorney's bill the highest.
| favorited wrote:
| > Which licence would take precedence here?
|
| There is only 1 license, and it is issued by the WinAmp
| copyright holders. No additional license is created by
| hosting a repository on GitHub. The only (extremely
| theoretical) issue would be between GitHub and the WinAmp
| folks, if GH believed that WinAmp is violating its TOS.
| squarefoot wrote:
| Interesting to see how would this play out in case of a
| lawsuit against an user who doesn't honor their license
| because it clashes with GH one. Anyway, that code has already
| been swallowed by some AI that will reorganize it, split in
| functional blocks and regurgitate it elsewhere someday, so
| too late for them to complain.
| kube-system wrote:
| The GitHub ToS is not a software license. It is the terms
| for using the GitHub service. The penalty for breaking it
| is that your GitHub services might be terminated, not that
| they can somehow relicense your software.
| trehalose wrote:
| This part of the ToS explicitly does grant such a license
| to other GitHub users.
|
| > If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed
| publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive,
| worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your
| Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your
| Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's
| functionality (for example, through forking).
| efilife wrote:
| It would seem that Github's TOS is superior to their
| license. They could have chosen other way to host their
| code
| IgorPartola wrote:
| As written, this says that you can fork a repo but can't
| then clone it and work on it on your own machine. Isn't
| software licensing fun?
| skeaker wrote:
| Interesting. I guess you could just stick to the Github
| web editor to stay compliant? Really a terrible way to go
| about things though
| IgorPartola wrote:
| You also can't run the code.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Hmm, it says not to distribute the source or the binary.
| What about WASM or LLVM IR?
| IgorPartola wrote:
| If GH provides they capability I suppose.
| trehalose wrote:
| I was thinking that. The language seems not quite clear,
| at least to a non-lawyer like me:
|
| > you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide
| license to use, display, and perform Your Content through
| the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely
| on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality
| (for example, through forking)
|
| So, on GitHub, we can "use", "perform", and "reproduce".
| Does editing/modifying fall under any of those verbs?
| SixtyHurtz wrote:
| Cloning is part of GitHub's functionality, so therefore
| we can clone it but can only commit those changes back to
| GH. We are permitted to do anything that is part of GH's
| functionality.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| IANAL...
|
| By creating an account on GitHub, you agree to this license.
| That seems like a pretty strong precedent for precedence.
| avodonosov wrote:
| Different meaning of "forking".
|
| "modified/derived version" vs "copy"
| Etheryte wrote:
| There is no conflict here. The quote from Github's ToS means
| you allow others to copy the source code you've made public,
| it cannot and does not give you any rights regarding what you
| do with the code beyond that. Points one and two of the
| Winamp license quote are essentially one and the same, just
| worded in a different way for clarity.
| SixtyHurtz wrote:
| The GitHub ToS states:
|
| > If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed
| publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive,
| worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content
| through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content
| solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's
| functionality (for example, through forking). You may grant
| further rights if you adopt a license. If you are uploading
| Content you did not create or own, you are responsible for
| ensuring that the Content you upload is licensed under
| terms that grant these permissions to other GitHub Users.
|
| It would be weird to have a license that lets me create a
| fork in my own repo, but doesn't permit me to distribute
| it. If I create a fork of a public repo on GH, I require a
| license to distribute it because a public repo can be
| forked or downloaded by anyone. I can't them doing doing
| it. Therefore permission to further distribute is required
| for participation on GH.
| unilynx wrote:
| > If I create a fork of a public repo on GH, I require a
| license to distribute it because a public repo can be
| forked or downloaded by anyone
|
| Why?
|
| The users that clone or fork your fork of the original
| repository are covered by the original repository's
| "license" GitHub grants itself, not yours.
| SixtyHurtz wrote:
| Because if I didn't have a license then that would mean I
| would be liable for infringement every time someone
| downloaded it from GH. That's exactly why GH has the TOS
| that it has - so that nobody can be sued for just using
| GH when a rights holder uploads their own work to a
| public GH repo.
| your_drunk_dad wrote:
| Time to report it to GH then.
| slightwinder wrote:
| I guess they mean with "fork" a rebranded or self-compiled
| version. So unmodified source code, but different logo or
| name. Or compiled with different settings or for an
| unsupported platform. Something along that line. But calling
| this fork, after they are already forbidding modifications in
| point 1 is really strange phrasing.
| mrgoldenbrown wrote:
| There are two distinct meanings of fork and you are
| conflating them I think. I suspect winamp's license is using
| the sense of the (pre GitHub) idea of creating a distinct
| version of a project maintained by a different group, and the
| GitHub ToS specifically refers to forking within the GitHub
| platform.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| What is the other meaning of fork?
|
| When you click "fork this repo" in GitHub, that clones the
| repository, and re-publishes it under your username.
|
| When you clone a repo to your system privately, that does
| not involve publishing. If this is their intended meaning
| of "fork", then this license must explicitly disallow
| cloning the repo!
| TheCraiggers wrote:
| > What is the other meaning of fork?
|
| The older, still in use today meaning is what happened
| when Oracle bought MySQL and ruined it. People forked it
| and now we have MariaDB. Basically, it means a fork in
| the code base and now there are two separate projects.
| simoncion wrote:
| Yes.
|
| Until Github came along, "Creating a copy of software for
| your own personal use" had never been widely-accepted
| definition of the word "fork" in the context of software
| development. Forking a project has always involved
| independent publication and maintenance of said project.
| bee_rider wrote:
| The typical way of copying a project for your own
| personal use on GitHub involves publishing that copy on
| GitHub. So, it is a real fork--maybe not a _well
| maintained_ one, or one that the author is particularly
| excited about, though!
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| OK, but that's still not different.
|
| When you fork a project on GitHub, that literally creates
| a parallel working history, and publishes it under your
| username. That's what GitHub means by "fork".
|
| So what's the _other_ definition?
| AshamedCaptain wrote:
| Many years ago I would have called that "mirroring",
| which is definitely not forking.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| OK, but a mirror only exists to share an exact (hopefully
| up-to-date) copy of the repo. So we are just moving the
| goalpost from the moment you create the fork to the
| moment you edit it. Did that really change anything? I
| don't think so.
| tnh wrote:
| You can Zeno's-paradox-away the distinction between a
| bathtub and a kitchen sink, but that doesn't make them
| the same thing.
|
| This sort of argument change how people understand words,
| and it also doesn't change how lawyers interpret laws
| nearly as often as people think. It's still fun, though!
| homebrewer wrote:
| > Oracle bought MySQL and ruined it
|
| By "ruined" you must mean "solved decades-long issues and
| turned it into a real database", or we're talking about
| two different projects.
|
| https://dev.mysql.com/blog-archive/the-complete-list-of-
| new-...
|
| https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.4/en/mysql-
| nutshell.html
|
| Do note that the largest users (like GitHub and Facebook)
| still use the original MySQL, and AFAIK have no plans to
| abandon it.
| kjhcvkek77 wrote:
| In particular I think you may press the fork button on
| the github repo as per github rules. However, you are not
| allowed to make any commits to this new repo.
| maxerickson wrote:
| Any public GitHub fork is being distributed.
| efilife wrote:
| You can't have a private Github fork
| bdcravens wrote:
| Yes you can; it's set at the organization level
|
| https://docs.github.com/en/organizations/managing-
| organizati...
| zorgmonkey wrote:
| You can, but only private forks of a private repo are
| allowed. Private forks of public repos are not allowed by
| design (modulo some weird bugs that were discussed on a
| past post).
| efilife wrote:
| I stand corrected
| swinglock wrote:
| Is forking a well defined term? Doubt it will hold up in
| court.
| maxerickson wrote:
| They don't give permission, so the lack of definition
| doesn't really matter.
|
| If they were trying to grant a narrow permission and then
| enjoin someone they thought was outside of their
| definition, it would matter (But they just aren't giving
| permission to distribute modified versions).
| willcipriano wrote:
| Anything the owners of the Winamp code can find in order
| to take legal action on will be distributed. Rule 2 (and
| 3) is always superfluous in practice.
| krick wrote:
| Let's say you are hallucinating "two distinct meanings of
| fork". Unless you are referring to tableware, a fork is a
| fork, it's any distribution of a software, based on the
| software in question. The fact that most forks on GitHub
| serve only operational purpose, nobody actively maintains
| them and nobody normally uses them instead of the parent
| project, doesn't change what they are: a distributions for
| (potentially, and unless PR is accepted, actually) distinct
| software projects, based on a project they are forked from.
| You are just so used to the button and the process, you
| lost track of what the label on that button actually means,
| why it's called "a fork". And the answer is, well, because
| it's a fork. In no way it is different from starting a
| MariaDB project. As soon as you press that button, you are
| distributing your own software, based on that parent
| software. If the parent project disappears, or moves on, or
| never accepts your PR, which somebody really likes, other
| people can (and probably will) use your fork in a way that
| isn't any different than, well, any larger and "more
| obvious" fork.
|
| So, essentially, winamp license means nothing. They already
| forfeited their right to deny you forking by posting it on
| GitHub.
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| Just an aside, but really hope "maybe you're
| hallucinating..." doesn't catch on in human to human
| speech.. Its great for the models, kinda too flattening
| for real discourse.
| 486sx33 wrote:
| "...maybe you're hallucinating..." and "...I must be
| hallucinating..." Have been part of human to human
| communication since the 60s, when people in fact could
| very seriously have been. It continued on for acid
| flashbacks and other surreal moments
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| Thats certainly true, and at least in philosophy similar
| discourses go back much farther than that!
|
| But the senses are importantly different right? In the
| former, we are talking about clearly psychological
| assertions, in the form of skepticism, within an
| otherwise shared world.
|
| Here it is clearly rhetorical though, right? Talking to
| GP as if they were LLM. Using it for a not-so-shorthand
| for "I believe you to be wrong about this".
|
| Its really not a big deal. It's just interesting, I
| guess, how much the tools tend to master us and change us
| while we lie to ourselves that its the other way around.
|
| Also, hadn't heard "acid flashbacks" in a long time..
| Still waiting for mine!
| EchoReflection wrote:
| I've used LSD a few times, but to my knowledge never had
| any "acid flashbacks". Maybe that's for the best... but
| seems like it might be fun if one was in a safe
| environment.
| Delk wrote:
| "Maybe you're hallucinating", let alone "let's say you're
| hallucinating", is a really weird take on someone
| thinking of a reasonable semantic distinction even if you
| disagree about its existence or relevance.
|
| Perhaps you can say that to a friend as banter or in a
| tongue-in-cheek way, similarly to how you might say "I
| must be hallucinating" about yourself. But as an argument
| in a discussion with a stranger, it seems rather
| dismissive and inappropriate.
|
| And it does reek a bit like something stolen from LLM
| terminology.
| neycoda wrote:
| A fork is a copy of a repo at a certain version. A copy of
| the files of the repo without the .git folder is
| effectively a fork. Either way, their terms contradict what
| GitHub allows.
| rogerdpack wrote:
| You can fork it but not commit to it? LOL
| revscat wrote:
| The language is pretty clear to me. I understand what you're
| saying, and suspect that this is an honest oversight on their
| part, but as it currently reads forks are prohibited.
|
| They may have meant something else, but what it says _now_ is
| "no forking."
| CrankyBear wrote:
| They know exactly what they're doing. They're open-washing
| the program to get attention. It worked. As I write this,
| it's the number one YComb story. But, it's in no way, shape,
| or form open source.
| bmacho wrote:
| I am all for reverse Hanlon[0]: don't assume incompetence
| when people profit from something. I think however that
| "source available" is a legit business model, and not just
| a HN hack. They made their source code available after all.
| Although it isn't compatible with github, as the others
| pointed it out.
|
| [0] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
| hn_go_brrrrr wrote:
| It's not "Open Source", to use the capitalized term the OSI
| attempts to gatekeep. It fits most non-zealots' definition,
| though.
| trashburger wrote:
| How is it zealous to prevent people from co-opting and
| diluting the meaning, like you have done here? If
| anything, companies are trying to misuse "open source"
| for their source-available code.
| derefr wrote:
| Well, it's at least slightly more open than e.g.
| Microsoft's source-available repositories, let alone leaked
| proprietary source; as you do have the freedom to e.g.
| _read_ the Winamp source code and then _ground-up
| reimplement a Winamp-alike program_ , without their lawyers
| coming after you. (Orgs like ReactOS don't let people
| contribute if they've ever read code from a Microsoft
| source-available repos, lest _ideas inspired by that code_
| end up in the ReactOS codebase, and Microsoft sue them for
| that.)
|
| I'm not sure what to call a codebase that _only_ grants you
| the (implicit) right to not be sued for reading the source
| and then getting inspired by it, though.
| nick238 wrote:
| I thought reading closed-source code is a _very_ bad
| idea, as if you wind up writing something similar, then
| you 're possibly guilty of copyright infringement. If you
| have one team look at the design, catalog the features,
| and describe how it works in detail, then you can have
| another team implement it, and you're on legally much
| better ground (unless patents):
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean-room_design
| badsectoracula wrote:
| > I thought reading closed-source code is a very bad
| idea, as if you wind up writing something similar, then
| you're possibly guilty of copyright infringement.
|
| The idea is to avoid accidentally copying code, though
| TBH i think this is some sort of legend that comes from
| decades ago and not really practical (nor, as the article
| mentions, required by law). Writing something similar
| alone won't make you guilty of anything, otherwise people
| who worked as programmers wouldn't be able to work at a
| different company on the same or similar field again
| _ever_.
| z3t4 wrote:
| I think this is a great license as it allows you to
| download the code, make modifications, create "pull
| requests", etc, but you are not allowed to compete, or
| distribute it with a virus baked in. That way the
| maintainers have full control and don't have to worry about
| hostile takeovers, or people making profits without
| contributing.
| grishka wrote:
| It feels like they wanted to make sure that no one distributes
| a modified "Winamp" that isn't built from the official sources,
| which makes sense, but they went too restrictive on it. The
| usual way to go about it is to say "if you want to maintain and
| distribute your own fork of this product, you must change the
| name and the logo to make sure it doesn't infringe on our
| branding". Telegram does this for its client apps, for example.
| simoncion wrote:
| > ...but they went too restrictive on it.
|
| I bet that they would disagree with you. This is an "all
| rights reserved" "source available" license. Given the
| redistribution restrictions, their assertion that it is a
| "copyleft" license is clearly false.
| panzi wrote:
| Yeah, I wouldn't call that an open source license. It's
| something like Microsoft's "shared source", as I
| expected/feared.
| sva_ wrote:
| Seems like 37 madlads have already pushed the fork button.
| InsomniacL wrote:
| The person who set the license is also accepting PR's from
| forks.
|
| https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/pull/7
| greenavocado wrote:
| The confusion and disorganization is hilarious
| airstrike wrote:
| IANAL but doesn't that basically show they are OK with forks?
| imp0cat wrote:
| There's already 229 of them, so we will see.
| merb wrote:
| Ianal but the license also prohibits fair use cases, which
| probably might circumvent the granted license.
| somat wrote:
| It's not open source. however I like it. I wish closed source
| licenses were more of a thing. as it is, our software tends to
| fall under two two extremes very liberal open source. closed
| build artifact only. with very little in the middle.
|
| I think a "here is the copyrighted(with all that implies)
| source for you to compile on your machine" software
| distribution would be a great middle ground. but it is a thing
| you normally only see on large screwball enterprise contracts.
| because the normal practice of here is the compiled build
| artifact really sucks when trying to trouble shoot why it is
| not working on your machine.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| This license prohibits maintenance. If the official copy had a
| single bit that prevents it from compiling on your local
| machine, you cannot make that change. Only the "maintainers of
| the official repository" are permitted to do that.
| bastardoperator wrote:
| Looks like someone just removed 180K lines of plugin source
| code from the repo too. Checkout from here:
| 7ce05499ff0508f9eb06f7194407f676de7d72f4
| KPGv2 wrote:
| > but the language is curious because they explicitly welcome
| contributions and for a project hosted on Github the standard
| way to do that is to "fork" the project into your own account.
|
| It's because techies instead of lawyers wrote it. The first and
| second restrictions overlap anyway, as it says you can't
| distribute a modified version in the first restriction, but
| then can't distribute a forked version in the second
| restriction. I'm not sure what the difference is, and courts
| don't like redundancy and will often invent reasons to
| interpret the phrases as meaning something different.
|
| I got a $15 parking ticket recently and got it dismissed after
| I contested the ticket on the basis that the way the city regs
| were written, they used both "parking spot" and "parking area"
| and thus "parking area" cannot be synonymous with "parking
| spot," which altered the meaning of the reg they used to ticket
| me.
| bredren wrote:
| Curious if you'd share the language you used in this
| contention.
| lucideer wrote:
| "source code is open" implies "open source", and the License
| refers to itself as a "copyleft" license, but it's a newly minted
| license - IANAL does anyone know if this is open source or
| another Elastic type situation?
| justinclift wrote:
| It's definitely not Open Source as it has pretty restrictive
| terms. :(
| gjvc wrote:
| see also see https://winamp.com/player/legacy and
| https://about.winamp.com/press/article/winamp-open-source-co...
| bityard wrote:
| The second link is a 404
| mikestew wrote:
| Probably this one:
|
| https://winamp.com/press/winamp-open-source-code
| gjvc wrote:
| fixed
| scblock wrote:
| Source-available but certainly not open source.
|
| "You are granted the right to view, access, and study the source
| code of the software. You are granted the right to Modify the
| software for private use only."
|
| "No Distribution of Modified Versions: You may not distribute
| modified versions of the software, whether in source or binary
| form."
|
| "No Forking: You may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked
| version of the software."
| dncornholio wrote:
| Nobody said anything about open source
| ryandrake wrote:
| Yea this is just a case of a bad HN title. The source is
| clearly not open, even if though it is released.
|
| EDIT: looks like the title's been corrected!
| blue_cadet_3 wrote:
| They say the same thing in their blog post announcing it.
|
| https://winamp.com/press/winamp-open-source-code
| npteljes wrote:
| Title is "Winamp Legacy player source code is now open". The
| usage of the word "open" in conjunction "source code" alludes
| to the long established "open source code" phrase, which
| implies a set of licenses, and the associated open source
| culture.
|
| A better choice for the title would have been "Winamp Legacy
| player source code is now available".
| dncornholio wrote:
| I agree but my statement still holds true. When something
| doesn't explicitly say "Open Source", it's not Open Source.
| This is a very old trick that i've learned decades ago..
| RIMR wrote:
| Well, the description in the Repo says this:
|
| >its source code was opened to the community
|
| I find it hard to believe that any serious person would
| argue that "code that is open to the community" [?] "open
| source code".
|
| I think it's realistic to assume that the developers who
| wrote the README, and the lawyers who wrote the license
| didn't talk to each other much when making decisions
| about how much freedom users were going to have with the
| code.
| thedoctor_o wrote:
| They've worded it just as they intended imho (ignoring
| the confusion over fork aspect) as it's how to ensure
| that they're still in charge & to prevent anything
| derivative as they really don't like that based on prior
| experience with them.
|
| It's also mostly about getting that lovely free dev work
| because with oh so many capable devs out there they're
| just going to be clamouring to want to give up anything
| where possible to be able to work on this along with
| trying to appear to be doing good. Even though they've
| halted development at least 3 times I'm aware off &
| ditched a number of dev teams under their 11yr tenure of
| ownership.
| bityard wrote:
| The HN headline did
| blue_cadet_3 wrote:
| Their official blog post does
|
| https://winamp.com/press/winamp-open-source-code
| dncornholio wrote:
| It does not. It open-source only in it's URL which has no
| semantic value if you read the article.
| deathanatos wrote:
| _And_ the license itself states,
|
| > _The [license] is a free, copyleft license_
|
| And then proceeds to not be a free, copyleft license.
|
| This pretty clearly seems like they're trying to squat on
| the terms "copyleft" "free software" and "open source"
| while weasel-wording their way out of it -- "open
| washing", as someone else in the comments called it,
| seems to fit. This smacks of someone who wants to _use_
| the words, and to have you feel like they 've used the
| words, but without having to actually do the things the
| words would mean, spoken genuinely.
| RIMR wrote:
| Contract law doesn't really allow for this kind of
| behavior. If you say over and over again that your
| software is open source and the community is free to
| develop with it as they please, and then write your
| license to say the opposite, you're going to have a hard
| time enforcing the license given that you're actively
| telling people to violate the terms in your press
| release.
| airhangerf15 wrote:
| It's still misleading and they're obviously trying to
| imply marketing value that doesn't exist.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| If I can read the code, it's open source.
|
| What you're complaining about is _free_ source code, which this
| probably is not.
| papruapap wrote:
| man, at first glance doesnt look like a lot of work to add
| support to linux.
| apricot wrote:
| Does Linux really need another media player?
| ginko wrote:
| It certainly needs Winamp.
| gdelfino01 wrote:
| I recently wend through the process of selecting a MP3 player
| software for my Linux laptop and after testing many settled
| on the Strawberry player. It is actually very good:
| https://www.strawberrymusicplayer.org/
| racked wrote:
| Care to elaborate on how you can see that? Eager to learn
| aflukasz wrote:
| "We take DirectX 9 SDK (June 2010) from Microsoft, modify it and
| pack to archive. Run unpack_microsoft_directx_sdk_2010.cmd to
| unpack it."
|
| Nice. Wonder how long will this version work?
| chrsw wrote:
| I was surprised you're allowed to this. But I also haven't read
| the license.
| toast0 wrote:
| Windows executables mostly work forever. Especially if they
| were widely distributed.
|
| If Winamp is broken on Windows N+1, it's Windows that is
| broken. If Winamp is broken on Wine, it's Wine that is broken.
| AshamedCaptain wrote:
| May have been true 20 years ago. But these days it is not
| hard to find a game which works in Wine but not Windows. And
| DirectX is often the reason.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| Yup.
|
| I have Master of Orion 2, which came out when DirectX was
| in version 1.0. It technically executes in Windows 10, but
| the graphics are glitchy.
|
| When they re-released it on Steam along with the MoO
| remake, they actually packaged the DOS version with DOSBox
| rather than release the Windows version.
| babypuncher wrote:
| I think this is largely only true with Windows games from
| the '90s using still-nascent 3D apis. Many of these games
| were broken on modern versions of Windows by the time Vista
| came out.
|
| Once you get to the early '00s, you can still find a lot of
| games that are broken, but the culprit is usually changes
| in hardware and driver behavior rather than Windows itself.
| AshamedCaptain wrote:
| No, not really. Even if you ignore DRM which practically
| makes ALL games from the XP-Vista era unplayable (which I
| ignore since that is often not better in Wine), just
| search around for the amount of workarounds that are
| required even when you apply these patches.
| babypuncher wrote:
| I wasn't saying that fewer games from the '00s require
| fixes, I said that the things that are broken in them are
| more often caused by factors other than Windows itself.
| The most common compatibility issues I see with games
| from this era are caused by changes made to GPUs and/or
| their accompanying drivers.
|
| Take for example the first two Splinter Cell games.
| Certain shadows on them do not render on modern GPUs. The
| root cause isn't any changes Microsoft made to DirectX or
| Windows, but Nvidia deprecating a feature they relied on
| in their GPUs and their drivers not providing any kind of
| fallback. If you play these games on Windows XP with
| hardware from 2003, they run fine. But if you play them
| on Windows XP with hardware from 2007, they do not.
|
| Wine fixes a lot of these games because it is already
| providing its own translation layer for graphics calls,
| and any GPU vendor-specific DirectX stuff gets translated
| into hardware-agnostic Vulkan. These same games are often
| easy to fix on Windows using DXVK (Wine's DirectX
| translation layer), or wrappers designed for late '90s
| and '00s games like dgvoodoo2.
|
| The big elephant in the room is DRM, with popular
| solutions like StarForce being deliberately broken by
| Microsoft.
| klaussilveira wrote:
| I can't comprehend such a restrictive license on abandonware. And
| from the the looks of it, not very well written abandonware.
| npteljes wrote:
| I was a huge fan of Winamp back in the day, but the way they
| handled the software completely soured me towards it. Winamp 3
| was a clusterfuck, Winamp 5 was fine but felt like bloat, and
| then it was passed around like a hot potato, then abandoned on
| and off, and then the open sourcing feels like it was also
| around for quite some time. And now it's not even that, just a
| meager source-available. I know they don't owe me anything, but
| I feel disappointed.
| jb1991 wrote:
| 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.
| deciplex wrote:
| One of the earlier examples of enshittification, before the
| process had been smoothed out and best practices established.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Further discussion about this "opening up" back in May:
|
| _Winamp has announced that it is "opening up" its source code_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40383029
| abtinf wrote:
| 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 lost through selective enforcement
| (unlike trademark), but in this case the rights holder is making
| license violations both trivial and has full access to the list
| of violators. I suspect the courts will laugh them out of the
| room unless they vigorously defend their rights.
|
| In that case, I certainly wouldn't want to deal with it if I was
| GitHub. It is a terrible user experience, where a user clicking
| one of the most popular buttons on the platform suddenly becomes
| a legal problem.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| > In that case, I certainly wouldn't want to deal with it if I
| was GitHub. It is a terrible user experience, where a user
| clicking one of the most popular buttons on the platform
| suddenly becomes a legal problem.
|
| As others have mentioned, GitHub has already covered that with
| their ToS. All public repos may be forked.
| abetusk wrote:
| A perversion of the term "open". The licensing terms do not allow
| redistribution or resale, which is a condition of "open source"
| (as it's commonly accepted).
|
| Note how the title nor the repository says "open source". I would
| have called this source available, not that "the source is now
| open".
| simoncion wrote:
| The license claims that it's a copyleft license... but it
| cannot be one with the distribution restrictions demanded by
| the license.
|
| I hope that they either remove the claim that it is a copyleft
| license, or relax the distribution restrictions to something
| like "If you distribute modified versions of this Program, you
| may not call the modified versions Winamp.".
| abetusk wrote:
| I completely missed that.
|
| The license file also says that it's "free" and ensures that
| we have the "freedom to use it":
|
| """ The Winamp Collaborative License is a free, copyleft
| license for software and other kinds of works. It is designed
| to ensure that you have the freedom to use, Modify, and study
| the software, but with certain restrictions on the
| distribution of modifications to maintain the integrity and
| collaboration of the project. """
|
| Looks like there's already pushback in the issues section [1]
| [2].
|
| [0] https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/blob/community/LI
| CEN...
|
| [1] https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/issues/16
|
| [2] https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/issues/6
| thefourthchime wrote:
| I have a little history with Winamp. I wrote a popular plugin for
| it back in the day.
|
| This is the source code for Winamp 3, which is a total rewrite of
| winamp 2 in C++. In my opinion, it was overcomplicated and over-
| architected. The original source code by Justin Frankel in C.
| jb1991 wrote:
| Is Frankel's original code anywhere? I do recall him saying
| once that he preferred C++ over C but used C++ as simply C with
| classes. Frankel is a hero of mine.
| mihaitodor wrote:
| I think there was a copy of it buried somewhere in the
| comments here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29379346
| thedoctor_o wrote:
| What has been "provided" is the stripped down 5.666 source
| bundle given to radionomy when sold on from AOL & the end
| result of their iterations up to the 5.9.2 release. So it's
| made up of the however many years of the 1.x -> 2.x -> 5.x
| development process & however many different people hacked upon
| it in that time (aka a mess).
|
| Yes there's a large part of winamp3 in there which was already
| long since open sourced properly in the aol era (unlike this
| heavily restricted licensing terms) but from what I remember
| when making the code deliverable the dedicated winamp3
| repository was never provided (assuming my memory from 11yrs
| ago is still good).
|
| -dro
| zerkten wrote:
| Is there an official announcement or something else that
| accompanied this? I don't know the current state of their
| organization and the chain of ownership for the code.
| factorialboy wrote:
| F yeahhhhh ... the player that never crashed, even if Windows OS
| crashed all around it
|
| This is more significant (to me) than the iPhone 16 launch, I'll
| pay for people who can port this to Linux (Gnome) and Mac OS.
| mdaniel wrote:
| Barring the ton of licensing stupidity ongoing (maybe they'll
| fix it, who knows), as far as I know you could actually do that
| by forking the repo and then connecting your fork to
| bountysource. Open an issue for each target OS, set the
| amounts, and then publicize that fact on as many social media
| channels as you have access to
|
| However, I wanted to draw your attention to "are you asking the
| right question" because there's a _very real_ chance that the
| things you actually love about Winamp would not carry over to
| any such ports, since it 's not "recompile and get the Winamp
| on Windows experience" - they would be Gnome and macOS apps,
| behaving similar to other such apps
| elpocko wrote:
| Bountysource is long dead.
| ilrwbwrkhv wrote:
| One of the best pieces of software ever made. Will devour its
| code. Hopefully new startups like Slack can learn from it too.
| opan wrote:
| Not open source, not free software. Restrictions in license found
| here for those curious:
|
| https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/blob/community/LICEN...
| f1shy wrote:
| I was expecting to see some comment about the quality of the
| code. How clean (or not) it is.
|
| I was personaly hopping a much more ordered and clean codebase.
| mihaitodor wrote:
| Wish they bothered to preserve the commit history... Can't
| imagine anything sensitive in there that they couldn't share.
| thedoctor_o wrote:
| That'd mean they'd have to do more work then necessary &
| there'd at most only ever be what went back to the stripped
| down 5.666 code deliverable they got after it was sold on from
| AOL at the start of 2014 (was looked into but determined not
| worth the hassle when that was being sorted out at the time).
|
| -dro
| mihaitodor wrote:
| I see... Fair enough. Thanks for the background!
| JosephRedfern wrote:
| There is some pretty creative swearing throughout this codebase -
| very entertaining!
| anordal wrote:
| I thought so, but that's what I came to the comment section to
| know ;-)
| Linkd wrote:
| Are there any tools that can receive an entire code base like
| this, then analyze and answer questions about the code,
| structure, functionality?
| wppick wrote:
| Ya the one between your ears. Kidding! Maybe Sourcegraph Cody
| https://sourcegraph.com/cody, or possibly Github copilot. I
| think Cody might handle the multiple files better, and allows
| you to pick from multiple models.
| watt wrote:
| apparently folks are making tools to do this:
| https://martinfowler.com/articles/legacy-modernization-gen-a...
| ing33k wrote:
| Cursor can do it.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| There is an open source clone of Winamp called XMMS.
|
| Sonique and Foobar2000 were also venerable players of that era.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| I still use Foobar. Ideal/timeless software.
| gapan wrote:
| 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/
| davidpfarrell wrote:
| The best thing we can do for the future of the project is to NOT
| engage with the project at this time ... Even just cloning the
| project into your private workspace to review / compile is giving
| more engagement than their current licensing stance warrants.
|
| I'll check again when an HN post comes out stating they've
| changed their licensing stance - Until then, closing this tab and
| forgetting about it ...
| lacedeconstruct wrote:
| The author justin frankel (also wrote reaper the DAW absolute
| legend) had this to say about it
|
| > Question: Now that WinAMP's source has been officially
| released, do you have any desire to hack new badass features
| in?
|
| _Answer: 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._
| johnchristopher wrote:
| Which winamp is it ? Version 2 ? Version 3 with the wasabi (?)
| engine ? Or version 5 ?
| aeyes wrote:
| 5.9.2
|
| https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/blob/community/Src/W...
| interestica wrote:
| It's 2024. Was Winamp2 + plugin system just peak audio playback
| software?
| Suppafly wrote:
| >Was Winamp2 + plugin system just peak audio playback software?
|
| Yes. You can tell it was peak too because later versions got
| worse instead of better.
| nicholashead wrote:
| I remember hanging out in #mpeg3 on EFNet many many years ago and
| becoming an acquaintance of Justin Frankel while he was working
| on this. I had made a skin and even a few tray icons for him to
| use in the app, and some of them are in here. I can't remember
| 100% which ones were mine, but the punchlabel one definitely was.
| My name is in the credits too:
| https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/blob/0695744fd658c42...
| thrashwerk wrote:
| 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 looking for unpaid workers.
| sunshadow wrote:
| According to the license, this repo is not that different than me
| just extracting the source code from the binaries. Pass.
| synergy20 wrote:
| sorry but why does old winamp code still matter? there are plenty
| open source audio libraries these days along with different open
| source players.
| acuozzo wrote:
| It's a fun diversion to browse around old codebases, especially
| those of software you once used extensively.
| airhangerf15 wrote:
| It's still one of the best simple media players (sadly). If it
| had better HiDPI support, it'd still be my go to on Windows (if
| I still used Windows).
|
| I wonder if anyone there still has the source to the failed
| Linux Alpha. It crashed all the time, but it did exist, for a
| very short while.
| comprev wrote:
| The source code itself appears to come from a cracked version [0]
| supplied by deadbeef\n\n\ cracked by rOn\n\n\
| 32kb cool intro by lone";
|
| [0]
| https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/blob/community/Src/W...
|
| Edit: Apparently it's an Easter Egg! Credit to bri3d for research
| benmmurphy wrote:
| its probably an easter egg
| sionisrecur wrote:
| Yes, by the cracker team not by the Winamp devs.
| thedoctor_o wrote:
| Those names were some of the original devs & they're the
| ones who put it in the easter egg on the about dialog that
| it relates to as a hacker-like joke. The source code is
| what aol sold on as a stripped down copy of 5.666 & then
| what radionomy/audiovalley/llama group iterated on
| afterwards. As much as I dislike what now calls itself
| "winamp", it's nothing nefarious & you can find old 2.x
| installs with that about easter egg text.
|
| -dro
| skandl wrote:
| Weird, how does that even work? Does cracked mean its' been
| decompiled? It's strange because it includes other stuff like
| build scripts, etc that wouldn't be in released binaries..
| bri3d wrote:
| This is a weird Easter Egg that's been compiled into real,
| genuine, uncracked Winamp release builds for a very long time.
|
| The actual compiled binary ends up with the same text you see
| linked there scrambled using XOR (you can see that on the other
| side of the #if 0) to avoid it appearing in the binary's
| strings verbatim.
|
| It's unfortunately hard to find stuff from the Old Internet
| anymore (I recall this being discussed at length on the
| original Winamp forums), but there are some references to it
| here:
| https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/366648-winamp-51/page/2/#...
|
| There's a screenshot of the exact text from the source here:
|
| https://eeggs.com/items/45636.html
|
| And someone getting really confused about it on Reddit here:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/winamp/comments/caukeo/installed_wi...
| dfedbeef wrote:
| Finally I can play MP3s on my desktop computer
| momentsinabox wrote:
| Haven't thought about converting FLAC files to mp3 in a while.
| Hell yeah Winamp
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| Why convert? Winamp plays FLAC natively.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Can't we just let it die?
| grandpoobah wrote:
| You know what source code I'd like to see? ICQ and MSN and/or
| Windows Messenger.
| mihaaly wrote:
| Uh oh!
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iCPIUGnHQ8
| rzzzt wrote:
| This is a Worms sound effect as well, right? Does it come
| from a sound library? (I feel like I have watched a video
| about this at some point, but if there isn't one, there
| should be.)
|
| Edit: HN search gives me this short thread:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11289591
| rincebrain wrote:
| My local grocery store's registers made that noise when they
| had an error.
|
| You can imagine how fast my head whipped around the first
| time I heard it.
| sionisrecur wrote:
| Funny, the latest commit is "Removing code which is not open"[0],
| which means they are infringing on someone else's licensing terms
| by keeping it in the git history.
|
| [0]
| https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/commit/0a4b7d32d0906...
| srockets wrote:
| Based on https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/issues/11 it's
| their own code, just a different service they didn't decide to
| release the source for.
| thedoctor_o wrote:
| llama group / "winamp" don't own shoutcast anymore as that
| was all sold off a year or so ago to azerion as part of
| changing audiovalley into llama group.
|
| -dro
| saylisteins wrote:
| looks like both are under the same parent company Src: http
| s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radionomy#List_of_properties_f...
| thedoctor_o wrote:
| The history section just above the prior properties
| section is what's now the case with winamp & shoutcast
| under unrelated organisations nowadays. Though it's all a
| bit murky as radionomy & audiovalley were the same top
| people.
|
| -dro
| efilife wrote:
| What does -dro mean?
| random_ind_dude wrote:
| Look at their username.
| efilife wrote:
| So this is like a signature? Under every comment? Why, if
| we all have usernames?
| Philpax wrote:
| To introduce their WinAmp-relevant identity:
| https://winampplugins.co.uk/
| thedoctor_o wrote:
| It's just a habit I have when I'm replying to things so
| I'll try to remember to avoid doing it on here.
| DrammBA wrote:
| 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
| efilife wrote:
| I don't have a problem with it but didn't see the reason.
| Was I toxic?
| tecleandor wrote:
| Ha! They've been quickly pulling some other things in the last
| hour or two, like a bunch of files with this header...
| * Copyright 2000-2002 Dolby Laboratories, Inc. All
| Rights * Reserved. Do not copy. Do not
| distribute. * Confidential
| information. * * (C) copyright Fraunhofer
| - IIS (1998) * All Rights Reserved
| metadat wrote:
| Is there a copy of the original repository available
| anywhere?
|
| I wonder if it can even build.
| nar001 wrote:
| They didn't remove anything it's still available in the
| history
| metflex wrote:
| Is there any chance or an already existing fork to build for
| apple silicon mac!?
| yason wrote:
| This is the license equivalent of a specific automotive spare
| part for an old car where the dealer asks $1300 for it just to
| say they don't want to stock and sell those. "Yeah, it's
| available, sure, but...you don't want it."
| aantix wrote:
| Back in the summer of 1999 while I was in college, we were the
| first house to use MP3's at our parties. Most houses used a CD
| disc shuffler which usually consisted of a bunch of scratched and
| smudged discs, so their music skipped all the time.
|
| We went all digital. We were ahead of our time.
|
| The parties were in the basement. We'd lock the computer up in a
| spare bedroom - ran the wires and speakers out to the main
| basement area.
|
| We used Winamp on shuffle.
|
| Hours of music without a single skip, without us having to
| babysit the music.
|
| Thank-you Winamp for the great memories.
| happyweasel wrote:
| > Back in the summer of 1999 [..] > We went all digital. We
| were ahead of our time.
|
| Well I had a DAT recorder in 1993. Even a DAT walkman.
| mihaaly wrote:
| I guess I am not too far from the truth saying the CD (1982)
| is digital too. : )
|
| I assume what they mean is no physical media (storage) before
| the DAC, or something like that.
| stuaxo wrote:
| For anyone who wants to support a proper legacy I recommend
| backing the WACUP project.
|
| It's based on the winamp3 code, that Winamp did open source, and
| then the closed source parts are being re implemented.
| zadler wrote:
| Lot of fun looking at an old battle worn codebase like this.
| johndhi wrote:
| Simply reading the word "Winamp" brings back a nostalgia for me
| almost like smelling the perfume of an old girlfriend.
|
| Spent so many hours looking at my custom Winamp skin and playing
| songs I'd downloaded from god-knows-where...
| Asmod4n wrote:
| If you want a free copy of the SHOUTcast server software, they
| illegally share that code in their repo ..
| saylisteins wrote:
| looks like both are owned by a company called Radionomy src :
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radionomy#List_of_properties_f...
| stonethrowaway wrote:
| Hit that download button while it hasn't been force-push
| cleared.
| saylisteins wrote:
| Even if it's force pushed, it's too late as long as there are
| forks. See:
|
| - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41060102
|
| - https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/issues/19#issuecomm
| e...
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| Here it is from a snapshot before removal:
| https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/tree/3ab19235a69d96b...
| chinathrow wrote:
| There is even a full (code, data) GeoIP copy in there.
|
| https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/tree/3ab19235a69d96b.
| ..
| lofaszvanitt wrote:
| The only music player that wasn't annoying. Just did its job with
| a streamlined interface, without the clutter and clunky graphics
| that competitors thought was the way to go.
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| Checkout Tray Player if want a minimalist music player for
| Windows.
| sumtechguy wrote:
| > without the clutter and clunky graphics
|
| Wasnt one of the fun things with that player putting random
| skins on it? Or am I thinking of a different one?
| 77pt77 wrote:
| Yes.
|
| And also fancy graphical visualizations of the music.
| s1mplicissimus wrote:
| oh heck yeah, that was fun times!
| mihaaly wrote:
| My 'favourite' nowadays is Tidal. Those botchers cannot make a
| stable playback experience, also the UI is full of user hostile
| elements, approaches, and malfunctions. If I was in the
| position of hiring, those coming from Tidal had no chance.
| voidfunc wrote:
| Bizarre license reeks of a company that doesn't know what to do
| with their own highly regarded software but is desperate for the
| community to give them free improvements that they can later
| monetize.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Why did people start talking about open source in this thread?
| This is almost the opposite of open source, and doesn't claim to
| be open source. It's restrictive to the point where you should
| just treat it as an official source leak. It's even called
| "collaborative" by which they clearly mean that if you want to
| work on the software, you're free to send them a pull request.
| You're also free to compile it yourself, as long as you don't
| distribute it (modified or not) in any way.
|
| Nothing wrong with this, but I don't understand why people
| started arguing about open source. Because you get to look at the
| source?
| adzm wrote:
| Maybe finally this can help clarify how their WASABI interface
| thing works for the visualization plugins
| initramfs wrote:
| If you're just looking for a repository to steal,
| https://github.com/hatonthecat/CloneThisRepository
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-24 23:00 UTC)