257
Open-sourcing of WinAmp goes badly as owners delete entire repo (www.theregister.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/opensource@lemmy.ml
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/45026885

all 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 105 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I know, right... Damn foss enthusiasts, you show 'em sources in order to get some cheap publicity, and those bastards immediately start raising a stink over you slightly attempting to fuck them over with licensing

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 83 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I mean they don't understand SW, Licenses and Git. It's all out there now...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 71 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Hey at least we got some commercial secrets and licenses. It's always nice to get those.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 78 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    For starters, it was never "open source"...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

    For starters, it was never "open source"...

    From your link:

    Instead, as Winamp CEO Alexandre Saboundjian said, "Winamp will remain the owner of the software and will decide on the innovations made in the official version." The sort-of open-source version is going by the name FreeLLama.

    While Winamp hasn't said yet what license it will use for this forthcoming version, it cannot be open source with that level of corporate control.

    If I upload the source code for my project on Github/Forgejo/Gitlab/Gitea and license it under and open source license, allowing you to fork it and do whatever you want (so long as you follow the terms of my copyleft license), and I diligently ensure that code is uploaded to my repository before being deployed, but I ignore all issues, feature requests, PRs, etc., is my project open source?

    Yes.

    Likewise, if Winamp had been licensed under an open source license, it would have been open source, regardless of how much control they kept over the official distribution.

    Winamp wasn’t open source because its license, the WCL, wasn’t open source.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 53 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Did they comment on why it was deleted? I didn't see anything in the article. I recall the consensus was that they made so many mistakes the only way to fix it was deletion of the repo.

    I also saw in one of the comments of the Arstechnica article that the one who pushed for open-source wanted to clean up the code before publishing. Management said no, the entire team got fired/left, and suddenly the code got published with all that commercial stuff left in. Sounds about right.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Based on the article, this is a train wreck of cosmic proportions. My guess is, the CEO panicked and went into damage mitigation mode.

    Sounds like they’re trying to put out a titanium fire using only a bucket of water. What could go wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 37 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    I must say, this whole shitshow has been pretty funny to watch :)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I'm completely out of the loop. What happened?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 52 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Winamp published their code as "open source". Problem is...

    1. It wasn't open source, it was proprietary but you can see the source code.
    2. Their custom license didn't even allow forks, which is against GitHub TOS
    3. The codebase apparently contains proprietary code from third parties that they don't have the right to relicense.
    4. The codebase apparently contains GPL code from third parties that they probably didn't have the right to make proprietary in the first place
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Wait, there's GPL code there as well???

    I'd heard of all the others but this ome kinda snuck under the radar with all the larger issues at play here

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    ohhh nooooo, who could possibly have seen this coming

    not like that repo was getting constantly vandalized as people realized it contained copyrighted code that the winamp owners didn't have the rights to which the project managers were halfheartedly playing whack-a-mole with

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 20 points 2 years ago

    Is this what whipping the llamas ass looks like?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 11 points 2 years ago

    Too late the code is out there ... Forever

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •