5 ms·

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

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.

panzi 2y ago
Yeah, I wouldn't call that an open source license. It's something like Microsoft's "shared source", as I expected/feared.
somat 2y ago
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 2y ago
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 2y ago
Looks like someone just removed 180K lines of plugin source code from the repo too. Checkout from here: 7ce05499ff0508f9eb06f7194407f676de7d72f4
KPGv2 2y ago
> 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 2y ago
  Curious if you'd share the language you used in this contention.
proto-n 2y ago
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 2y ago
  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 2y ago
  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 2y ago
    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 2y ago
      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!)
lucideer 2y ago
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.
- deathanatos 2y ago
  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 2y ago
    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.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  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 2y ago
    That's not at all what copyleft means. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bityard 2y ago
> No Forking Amusing; there are already 6 forks on GitHub as of this writing.
- edm0nd 2y ago
  Now 52 forks on GitHub. Thug life.
  - flykespice 2y ago
    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 2y ago
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-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...
- rogerdpack 2y ago
  You can fork it but not commit to it? LOL
- elashri 2y ago
  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?
  - otteromkram 2y ago
    > Which licence would take precedence here? Whichever one runs up the attorney's bill the highest.
  - favorited 2y ago
    > 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.
  - shiandow 2y ago
    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
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
revscat 2y ago
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 2y ago
  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.
  - z3t4 2y ago
    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.
  - bmacho 2y ago
    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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
  - hn_go_brrrrr 2y ago
    It's not "Open Source", to use the capitalized term the OSI attempts to gatekeep. It fits most non-zealots' definition, though.
    - trashburger 2y ago
      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.
grishka 2y ago
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 2y ago
  > ...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.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
sva_ 2y ago
Seems like 37 madlads have already pushed the fork button.
InsomniacL 2y ago
The person who set the license is also accepting PR's from forks. https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/pull/7 https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/pull/7
- greenavocado 2y ago
  The confusion and disorganization is hilarious
- airstrike 2y ago
  IANAL but doesn't that basically show they are OK with forks?
  - imp0cat 2y ago
    There's already 229 of them, so we will see.
merb 2y ago
Ianal but the license also prohibits fair use cases, which probably might circumvent the granted license.

panzi 2y ago

Yeah, I wouldn't call that an open source license. It's something like Microsoft's "shared source", as I expected/feared.

somat 2y ago

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 2y ago

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 2y ago

Looks like someone just removed 180K lines of plugin source code from the repo too. Checkout from here: 7ce05499ff0508f9eb06f7194407f676de7d72f4

KPGv2 2y ago

> 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 2y ago
Curious if you'd share the language you used in this contention.

proto-n 2y ago

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 2y ago
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 2y ago
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 2y ago
  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 2y ago
    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!)

lucideer 2y ago

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.

deathanatos 2y ago
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 2y ago
  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.
kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
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 2y ago
  That's not at all what copyleft means. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

bityard 2y ago

> No Forking Amusing; there are already 6 forks on GitHub as of this writing.

edm0nd 2y ago
Now 52 forks on GitHub. Thug life.
- flykespice 2y ago
  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 2y ago

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-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...

rogerdpack 2y ago
You can fork it but not commit to it? LOL
elashri 2y ago
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?
- otteromkram 2y ago
  > Which licence would take precedence here? Whichever one runs up the attorney's bill the highest.
- favorited 2y ago
  > 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.
- shiandow 2y ago
  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
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

revscat 2y ago

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 2y ago
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.
- z3t4 2y ago
  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.
- bmacho 2y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
- hn_go_brrrrr 2y ago
  It's not "Open Source", to use the capitalized term the OSI attempts to gatekeep. It fits most non-zealots' definition, though.
  - trashburger 2y ago
    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.

grishka 2y ago

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 2y ago
> ...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.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

sva_ 2y ago

Seems like 37 madlads have already pushed the fork button.

InsomniacL 2y ago

The person who set the license is also accepting PR's from forks. https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/pull/7 https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/pull/7

greenavocado 2y ago
The confusion and disorganization is hilarious
airstrike 2y ago
IANAL but doesn't that basically show they are OK with forks?
- imp0cat 2y ago
  There's already 229 of them, so we will see.

merb 2y ago

Ianal but the license also prohibits fair use cases, which probably might circumvent the granted license.