4 ms·

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 righ

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 2y ago
Nobody said anything about open source
- ryandrake 2y ago
  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!
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - blue_cadet_3 2y ago
    They say the same thing in their blog post announcing it. https://winamp.com/press/winamp-open-source-code https://winamp.com/press/winamp-open-source-code
- npteljes 2y ago
  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 2y ago
    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 2y ago
      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 2y ago
        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.
      - npteljes 2y ago
        I share the same feelings, and I think that the way they phrased it is intentional. They are clearly capitalizing on the goodwill that is built around open source software over the years. In a "having the cake, and eating it too" kind of way.
- bityard 2y ago
  The HN headline did
- blue_cadet_3 2y ago
  Their official blog post does https://winamp.com/press/winamp-open-source-code https://winamp.com/press/winamp-open-source-code
  - dncornholio 2y ago
    It does not. It open-source only in it's URL which has no semantic value if you read the article.
    - deathanatos 2y ago
      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 2y ago
        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 2y ago
      It's still misleading and they're obviously trying to imply marketing value that doesn't exist.
Dalewyn 2y ago
If I can read the code, it's open source. What you're complaining about is free source code, which this probably is not.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

dncornholio 2y ago

Nobody said anything about open source

ryandrake 2y ago
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!
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- blue_cadet_3 2y ago
  They say the same thing in their blog post announcing it. https://winamp.com/press/winamp-open-source-code https://winamp.com/press/winamp-open-source-code
npteljes 2y ago
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 2y ago
  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 2y ago
    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 2y ago
      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.
    - npteljes 2y ago
      I share the same feelings, and I think that the way they phrased it is intentional. They are clearly capitalizing on the goodwill that is built around open source software over the years. In a "having the cake, and eating it too" kind of way.
bityard 2y ago
The HN headline did
blue_cadet_3 2y ago
Their official blog post does https://winamp.com/press/winamp-open-source-code https://winamp.com/press/winamp-open-source-code
- dncornholio 2y ago
  It does not. It open-source only in it's URL which has no semantic value if you read the article.
  - deathanatos 2y ago
    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 2y ago
      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 2y ago
    It's still misleading and they're obviously trying to imply marketing value that doesn't exist.

Dalewyn 2y ago

If I can read the code, it's open source. What you're complaining about is free source code, which this probably is not.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]