5 ms·

I don't really understand why people complained. The source is open, if don't want to contribute, don't. Just because something doesn't fit a specific definiti

by sureIy 2y ago

I don't really understand why people complained. The source is open, if don't want to contribute, don't. Just because something doesn't fit a specific definition it doesn't mean it's not worth of existence.

belthesar 2y ago
The source wasn't open though, it was available, and it was provided in a sense that fully showcased that they did not understand what they were doing. Everything from licenses that were fully unenforceable and non-compliant with Github's license agreement to illegally distributing proprietary code to fundamentally misunderstanding how to use git. It's one thing to provide a source available codebase. That's a choice, and it's fine for various definitions of fine. What they did was legally put themselves in hot water with the inclusion of proprietary dependencies, misrepresent what their intentions were, and likely irrevocably damage their reputation to a small, but vocal minority, who likely have a sizeable overlap with folks that know what Winamp is/was. It's okay if none of that matters to you, or if it doesn't resonate with you, but the things that were done were comically awful in terms of sharing a codebase.
- lukeschlather 2y ago
  Describing this as "comically awful" seems strange. In terms of building a good open source project, they did a bad job. However they did a good job making the source available. Also given all the dependencies they may have (whether intentionally or not) followed the best path to make sure that the source would be useful. They ended up looking bad and exposing themselves to legal trouble, but I'm not sure this was awful, and they might even have known exactly what they were doing.
  - tiahura 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Do people really not understand how bad this could be from a legal perspective. Licenses are a contract and they broke several contracts. >They ended up looking bad and exposing themselves to legal trouble, but I'm not sure this was awful For a company, I can't think of anything less awful than purposefully choosing to expose oneself to legal trouble. I'd say that qualifies as "comically awful". >they might even have known exactly what they were doing. In what way? Are they going bankrupt (so nothing to sue for) and just want to send out readable source on the way out, without enough care to strip out copyright and list dependencies? That's certainly a hail Mary, but I think that move does more damage to the community than goodwill.
- AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
  It doesn't meet your definition of the word open. Of course they didn't know what they were doing. It was written by a 19-year-old in the mid 90s. The code is messy with poor licensing and some build tools were included in the repository and they wrote a dumb license for it? Who cares, they shipped a product that 10s of millions of people used and loved and wanted to share that code up to the world and instead of embracing the best of what they were trying to do while helping them to make things better, the community piled on them until they said it was so not worth it that just pulled the whole thing. Bravo and job well done.
  - Calavar 2y ago
    > It doesn't meet your definition of the word open. That's a disingenuous argument. It doesn't meet the OSI's definition of open. > the community piled on them until they said it was so not worth it that just pulled the whole thing. Yes, but let's be honest: If it wasn't the community, it would have been DMCA takedown requests from the companies whose software was published in the repo. At best, the community hastened the end of the repo by a few weeks.
    - ipaddr 2y ago
      Assuming they know, care and want to spend resources writing a DMCA request.
      - consteval 2y ago
        You have to issue a DMCA, because if you don't defend your own IP then courts will assume you don't care about your IP.
        ipaddr 2y ago
        That's more trademark. You can choose to let anyone use your ip for a fee or not.
    - AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
- datavirtue 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    You're really not helping the argument here that LLMs aren't just stealing code.
    - account42 2y ago
      The lack of real consequences for LLMs just shows how absurd today's copyright is. Nintendo can take down emulators while big corps get to slurp up random users' data for free.
- Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y ago
  > non-compliant with Github's license agreement Oh no! I did notice all the hallmonitors calling for teacher. I absolutely support dumping proprietary code on any platform and I'm glad I got a copy the day it was uploaded which lets me verify any fork claiming to be from it.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    So basically you're glad someone broke their contract so you could hoard more code on your local end?
    - chasd00 2y ago
      information wants to be free or so I'm told/was shouted at for a decade.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        Reality is often disappointing. If we break the contracts we just end up with less free information. I want to protect the long term.
    - Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y ago
      Yes. It's not my contract. The worst you might consider me doing is copyright infringement.
Pet_Ant 2y ago
FTA: > "Winamp Collaborative License (WCL) Version 1.0.1," you may not "distribute modified versions of the software" in source or binary, and "only the maintainers of the official repository are allowed to distribute the software and its modifications." Anyone may contribute, in other words, but only to Winamp's benefit. They were basically grifters. It wasn't just a dump for preservation sake (which would be fine as a historical artifact), they wanted to benefit. Parasitic. What was the community benefitting? They could volunteer for free to benefit a for-profit company when there are already open-source clones that do the same thing? (XMMS and it's various descendents for starters).
- sureIy 2y ago
  > What was the community benefitting? You got to look at the code. Because it was open. It's the most literal definition of "open source". You're complaining because you can't also do whatever you want with it. So now we're back to the code being closed again. Better now?
doctorpangloss 2y ago
There’s overlap between the retrocomputing-Winamp audience and the litigate-the-opensourceyness-of-licenses audience. The better question is, does there exist anything with an audience where the aesthetic, subjective part of its experience doesn’t matter?

by sureIy 2y ago

belthesar 2y ago

The source wasn't open though, it was available, and it was provided in a sense that fully showcased that they did not understand what they were doing. Everything from licenses that were fully unenforceable and non-compliant with Github's license agreement to illegally distributing proprietary code to fundamentally misunderstanding how to use git. It's one thing to provide a source available codebase. That's a choice, and it's fine for various definitions of fine. What they did was legally put themselves in hot water with the inclusion of proprietary dependencies, misrepresent what their intentions were, and likely irrevocably damage their reputation to a small, but vocal minority, who likely have a sizeable overlap with folks that know what Winamp is/was. It's okay if none of that matters to you, or if it doesn't resonate with you, but the things that were done were comically awful in terms of sharing a codebase.

lukeschlather 2y ago
Describing this as "comically awful" seems strange. In terms of building a good open source project, they did a bad job. However they did a good job making the source available. Also given all the dependencies they may have (whether intentionally or not) followed the best path to make sure that the source would be useful. They ended up looking bad and exposing themselves to legal trouble, but I'm not sure this was awful, and they might even have known exactly what they were doing.
- tiahura 2y ago
  [flagged]
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Do people really not understand how bad this could be from a legal perspective. Licenses are a contract and they broke several contracts. >They ended up looking bad and exposing themselves to legal trouble, but I'm not sure this was awful For a company, I can't think of anything less awful than purposefully choosing to expose oneself to legal trouble. I'd say that qualifies as "comically awful". >they might even have known exactly what they were doing. In what way? Are they going bankrupt (so nothing to sue for) and just want to send out readable source on the way out, without enough care to strip out copyright and list dependencies? That's certainly a hail Mary, but I think that move does more damage to the community than goodwill.
AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
It doesn't meet your definition of the word open. Of course they didn't know what they were doing. It was written by a 19-year-old in the mid 90s. The code is messy with poor licensing and some build tools were included in the repository and they wrote a dumb license for it? Who cares, they shipped a product that 10s of millions of people used and loved and wanted to share that code up to the world and instead of embracing the best of what they were trying to do while helping them to make things better, the community piled on them until they said it was so not worth it that just pulled the whole thing. Bravo and job well done.
- Calavar 2y ago
  > It doesn't meet your definition of the word open. That's a disingenuous argument. It doesn't meet the OSI's definition of open. > the community piled on them until they said it was so not worth it that just pulled the whole thing. Yes, but let's be honest: If it wasn't the community, it would have been DMCA takedown requests from the companies whose software was published in the repo. At best, the community hastened the end of the repo by a few weeks.
  - ipaddr 2y ago
    Assuming they know, care and want to spend resources writing a DMCA request.
    - consteval 2y ago
      You have to issue a DMCA, because if you don't defend your own IP then courts will assume you don't care about your IP.
      - ipaddr 2y ago
        That's more trademark. You can choose to let anyone use your ip for a fee or not.
  - AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
datavirtue 2y ago
[flagged]
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  You're really not helping the argument here that LLMs aren't just stealing code.
  - account42 2y ago
    The lack of real consequences for LLMs just shows how absurd today's copyright is. Nintendo can take down emulators while big corps get to slurp up random users' data for free.
Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y ago
> non-compliant with Github's license agreement Oh no! I did notice all the hallmonitors calling for teacher. I absolutely support dumping proprietary code on any platform and I'm glad I got a copy the day it was uploaded which lets me verify any fork claiming to be from it.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  So basically you're glad someone broke their contract so you could hoard more code on your local end?
  - chasd00 2y ago
    information wants to be free or so I'm told/was shouted at for a decade.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      Reality is often disappointing. If we break the contracts we just end up with less free information. I want to protect the long term.
  - Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y ago
    Yes. It's not my contract. The worst you might consider me doing is copyright infringement.

Pet_Ant 2y ago

FTA: > "Winamp Collaborative License (WCL) Version 1.0.1," you may not "distribute modified versions of the software" in source or binary, and "only the maintainers of the official repository are allowed to distribute the software and its modifications." Anyone may contribute, in other words, but only to Winamp's benefit. They were basically grifters. It wasn't just a dump for preservation sake (which would be fine as a historical artifact), they wanted to benefit. Parasitic. What was the community benefitting? They could volunteer for free to benefit a for-profit company when there are already open-source clones that do the same thing? (XMMS and it's various descendents for starters).

sureIy 2y ago
> What was the community benefitting? You got to look at the code. Because it was open. It's the most literal definition of "open source". You're complaining because you can't also do whatever you want with it. So now we're back to the code being closed again. Better now?

doctorpangloss 2y ago

There’s overlap between the retrocomputing-Winamp audience and the litigate-the-opensourceyness-of-licenses audience. The better question is, does there exist anything with an audience where the aesthetic, subjective part of its experience doesn’t matter?