Yesterday, the Winamp source code, build tools, and associated libraries for the Windows app were published on GitHub, allowing anyone to provide bug fixes and new features to the iconic media player.

However, its license prohibits the distribution of modified software created through the release of this source code.

https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp

35 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
12 points
*

yes, that license is unfortunate… i am not a license expert, but “private use only” modifications is sad to me. i mean, the difference with the GPL is just that contribs need to be upstreamed, right? that seems like a better balance, if so?

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

the GPL does not require upstreaming. it would allow for anyone to redistribute Winamp with whatever modifications they like, provided they publish their source code under the GPL. the license Winamp is using is not even an open-source license since it explicitly forbids public redistribution. dumb move, they should have just used MIT or GPL and retained rights to the logo or something

permalink
report
parent
reply

thank you, good post. I was going to make a sassy comment about Winamp being “source-available” (derogatory) but it’s helpful to have you explain this instead, appreciate it. (I am a software dev, but I struggle with licenses etc.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Just make a repo containing only changes, no original source, with instructions anyone can use to create their own version with community changes applied?

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

This is not open source. In open source people contribute to the project and in return the code belongs to anyone who likes to take it and work on it. Here they are asking for contribution while fully owning the code. It’s basically free labor

permalink
report
reply
22 points

asks for community help

permalink
report
reply
8 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I think there’d still be enough people nostalgic about it to make a LinAmp out of the code, but only if it was under a real open source license.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

What’s a good alternative? I used to love playing around with winamp lol

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Even to this day I still use Foobar2000. Even with Linux through WINE.

No, it’s not open source, but it’s trim and does the job better than other players.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

🦙

permalink
report
reply
13 points

Winamp is a media player for Microsoft Windows originally developed by Justin Frankel and Dmitry Boldyrev by their company Nullsoft, which they later sold to AOL in 1999 for $80 million

permalink
report
reply
2 points

What use did AOL get out of a free desktop media player that was worth 80 million 1999 dollars?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Moreover, with Nullsoft, AOL is getting entrenched in the music download space in terms of adopting a technology. Although the MP3 (MPEG 1, Audio Layer 3) format is controversial among mainstream record companies because of its use by music pirates, its ease of use has made it a de facto standard for music downloads by early adopters. According to Nullsoft, 1.2 million of its Winamp MP3 players are downloaded monthly.

San Francisco-based Spinner.com offers more than 100 different music channels online via streaming technology. It also offers downloads of some songs via the MP3 format. The company will remain in its new San Francisco location, AOL said.

(Dot com bubble)

permalink
report
parent
reply

technology

!technology@hexbear.net

Create post

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

  • 1. Obviously abide by the sitewide code of conduct. Bigotry will be met with an immediate ban
  • 2. This community is about technology. Offtopic is permitted as long as it is kept in the comment sections
  • 3. Although this is not /c/libre, FOSS related posting is tolerated, and even welcome in the case of effort posts
  • 4. We believe technology should be liberating. As such, avoid promoting proprietary and/or bourgeois technology
  • 5. Explanatory posts to correct the potential mistakes a comrade made in a post of their own are allowed, as long as they remain respectful
  • 6. No crypto (Bitcoin, NFT, etc.) speculation, unless it is purely informative and not too cringe
  • 7. Absolutely no tech bro shit. If you have a good opinion of Silicon Valley billionaires please manifest yourself so we can ban you.

Community stats

  • 1.1K

    Monthly active users

  • 5.2K

    Posts

  • 60K

    Comments