• arthurpizza
    link
    English
    1176 months ago

    This is bullshit.

    Until I see an OSI approved license, it’s not open source.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      576 months ago

      I am so sick of these rubbish licensing efforts calling themselves Open Souce. Fair code is a new atrocity.

      There is no repository link. There is no open source code.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        516 months ago

        The Winamp announcement linked to in the article never says “Open source”, that’s the article writer not understanding the difference.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          126 months ago

          Tbf,

          opening up its source code to enable collaborative development

          sounds already close to open-source, though it isn’t necessarily, as the licence that is used matters.

      • @takeda
        link
        English
        256 months ago

        I disagree.

        CLA gives them total ownership of the code (all contributors are surrendering their copyright), and allows them to change license at any point in time, including making it closed source.

        If you’re contributing code to a project with CLA you’re not contributing to Open Source, you’re working for a company for free.

        • @grue
          link
          English
          156 months ago

          A CLA is okay if and only if the copyright is being assigned to the Free Software Foundation or a similarly reputable nonprofit.

          • @takeda
            link
            46 months ago

            Yes, thanks for pointing it out. As long as it is some organization that can’t be bought it should be fine. I didn’t included that because it makes my response more confusing.

            Essentially CLA gives the entire copyright to specific entity and that entity in case of FSF it likely could use it for fighting violations, while some startup likely intends to change license when their product gets more popular to cash out on it (for example what Hashicorp did recently before selling to IBM)

        • lemmyvore
          link
          fedilink
          English
          9
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          A CLA in itself is not necessarily bad, but it depends greatly of what the license is and what it says about future intentions.

          There had been many instances of copyright folders using the CLA as a means to go proprietary so the community is understandably wary about it today.

          If the current license is permanent and non-revokable like one of the well-known ones (GPL or MIT to name the most) then even if they change it later the code up to that point would remain under that license and can be forked freely.

          The issue in that case is not losing the code, it’s that the copyright holder has a long term plan where they benefit from community help for a while then take the product close source to monetize it, which is regarded as a dick move.

          IMO there are benefits to any project that uses a FOSS license even if temporarily if you can fork it afterwards. And let’s not forget that you can also fork it during.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          AFAIK that’s already the deal. So the proposal is a improvement of the deal. Also don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

          • @takeda
            link
            56 months ago

            This is not “perfect is enemy of good” it would be if I was arguing about MIT vs GPL etc.

            By signing CLA you’re surrendering copyright to the company and this allows them do do whatever they wish with your contribution, including switching back to closed source.

            Hashicorp was able to change license of their products exactly thanks to CLA.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    686 months ago

    What’s the licence? It doesn’t sound like “open source” and sounds more like “source available”.

    • @warmaster
      link
      386 months ago

      BSA

      Bullshit Source Available

  • @seaQueue
    link
    506 months ago

    “Hey Internet, come do development on our product for free so we can monetize it. TIA”

    • Ephera
      link
      fedilink
      286 months ago

      It annoys me, too, because there’s various open-source projects already, like QMMP and Audacious.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      176 months ago

      They just want more people being pushed to their NFT marketplace while getting free development. It’s astounding they are getting so much good press.

  • @asteriskeverything
    link
    266 months ago

    I went to the mall today and it felt like the early 2000s again

    Look I know it is barely on topic but that shit was so wild I had to

  • @errer
    link
    English
    196 months ago

    I wish foobar2000 was open source too. Maybe this will encourage the creator to do so.

    • Joël de Bruijn
      link
      fedilink
      66 months ago

      Agree, also I never encountered other software so flexible in user interface. Every feature can be placed with panels everywhere to your own liking. The whole app interface is like a canvas. Took me a while to get the hang of it but after that …

      Wished other apps were this flexible.

  • Eugenia
    link
    fedilink
    English
    176 months ago

    The sad thing about this is that 90% of the skins available for WinAmp since then are gone. You can’t find them to download them anymore.

  • Brownian Motion
    link
    136 months ago

    https://about.winamp.com/press/article/winamp-open-source-code Click on the top right download button, to get the PDF explaining it.

    It’d doesn’t look like it will be open source as in github/gitlab open source. It looks like they are asking people to apply to work on it for free, as in source will be made available to those successful applicants. That will probably also mean NDA’s etc.

    Or, it will be put on github, but only pull requests Winamp wants will be pulled. But I doubt this, because there would be a ton of forks, and people would remove all shitfuckery (NFTs!).

    They also mentioned they wanted to port it to all platforms, like Linux and fix the Android app so its more like actual PC winamp. This will be quite a task for something written to be purely windows. However the last release had them move the whole project from VS2008 to VS2019 in around 2022.

    I guess we will find out in September.

    https://about.winamp.com/free-llama

  • @Jimmycakes
    link
    9
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Why did they wait so long

    • @takeda
      link
      146 months ago

      They just want to get profit from the purchase but they are no longer competitive.

      Looks like they are looking for suckers to contribute to their code base for free without even making it actually open source.

      IMO at this point WinAmp does not offer anything beyond name recognition and nostalgia. Isn’t qmmp essentially an open source version of WinAmp?

      • Pleb
        link
        fedilink
        36 months ago

        IMO at this point WinAmp does not offer anything beyond name recognition and nostalgia. Isn’t qmmp essentially an open source version of WinAmp?

        Even as nostalgia, I just tried out loading a winamp skin from the winamp skin museum someone linked further up with qmmp and it handles that just fine too. So I’ll be just using that going forward.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    86 months ago

    Now we just need open source directx and direct draw so all the visualizations work and we’re in business.