5 ms·

The other thing we lost is that future companies will think again before making their code public. It's already such an incredibly rare thing in the wild, but n

by fooqux 2y ago

The other thing we lost is that future companies will think again before making their code public. It's already such an incredibly rare thing in the wild, but now companies and their lawyers will see that Winamp was exposed to potentially lawsuitable behavior that wouldn't have come to light had they never opened the code.

fluoridation 2y ago
All of this happened because the company didn't want to open source the code, they wanted to openwash it and get free labor from the open source community. If another company wants to do the same and they decide not to because of this, nothing of value is lost.
- ezekg 2y ago
  > they wanted to openwash it and get free labor from the open source community. This is such a ridiculous accusation. Why do discussions about source-available models often turn into accusations of soliciting free labor? Why can't authors just provide access to source code, but reserve some or all of the distribution rights? It's their code, after all. Nobody is forcing 'the open source community' to contribute under the terms set forth; anybody who does contribute does so under their own free will, under the terms set forth by the license. It doesn't always have to be a binary choice between open source and closed source, nor does it justify further accusations of "openwashing."
  - filcuk 2y ago
    What is the point of 'open source' where you're not even allowed to fork the damn repo?
    - Alupis 2y ago
      To read and learn what a very successful project's codebase looks like. I find value in every one of these types of releases. Sometimes that value is just a chuckle... knowing even successful codebases are as duct-taped together as all the rest.
    - tcfhgj 2y ago
      In case of security sensitive software, you could verify the security claims. Look at Apple, they claim E2EE, but don't even allow to verify that defeating the purpose of E2EE entirely (lack of need to trust the provider)
      - mort96 2y ago
        You can do that with source-available software too, I'm not sure where you think open source comes in?
        tcfhgj 2y ago
        My point is that Open Source isn't necessary for it, aka "open source without forking" is sufficient
        mort96 2y ago
        There is no such thing as "open source without forking". It's source available.
        tcfhgj 2y ago
        I don't care how you call it. My comment was a reply to a comment which described it this way.
  - fluoridation 2y ago
    You can make a source available license and no one will criticize you for it. You put in the license "you can look, but you can't touch". When it becomes openwashing is when you instead write "you can look but you can't compete with us, also feel free to give us a hand". Let me cite: > * Contribution to Project: You are encouraged to contribute improvements, enhancements, and bug fixes back to the project. Contributions must be submitted to the official repository and will be reviewed and incorporated at the discretion of the maintainers. > * Assignment of Rights: By submitting contributions, you agree that all intellectual property rights, including copyright, in your contributions are assigned to Winamp. You hereby grant Winamp a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, copy, modify, and distribute your contributions as part of the software, without any compensation to you. > * Waiver of Rights: You waive any rights to claim authorship of the contributions or to object to any distortion, mutilation, or other modifications of the contributions. >Nobody is forcing 'the open source community' to contribute under the terms set forth; anybody who does contribute does so under their own free will, under the terms set forth by the license. And? Yes, we're all acting out of our own free will. The owners of Winamp decided out of their own free will to release their code under those terms, and I'm criticizing them for trying to take advantage of people also out of my own free will. What's the issue?
    - ezekg 2y ago
      > When it becomes openwashing is when you instead write "you can look but you can't compete with us, also feel free to give us a hand". With all due respect, I don't think you know what open-washing means.
      - fluoridation 2y ago
        Well, enlighten me. What does it mean, and why was this not openwashing?
  - KetoManx64 2y ago
    Didn't the original version of their license state that you weren't allowed to do anything with the code, including forking it? It was "source available" but you're not even allowed to make a local copy of the code to look at it. People as a whole don't mind source available, Louis Rossman's FUTO's software is all source available and while they got a small minority of FOSS diehards complaining about it, they're doing great. Immich, FUTO Keyboard, FUTO Voice input, and Grayjay, are all source available, but the company was honest and didn't try to pull stupid shit like "you're not allowed to fork the code" in their license.
    - ezekg 2y ago
      To me, this seems to be a misunderstanding of the license text and the author's intent. The original license simply reserved all distribution rights. People assumed you couldn't even fork into a public GitHub repo in order to make pull requests, but afaict, the author clarified that the intent was not to prevent forking on GitHub, but to prevent redistribution of the forked software instead of contributing the changes back upstream. The right to make changes to the software for internal use was always there, afaict.
      - mort96 2y ago
        How the hell do you combine "open source" and "all distribution rights are reserved for the original developer"? That's a nonsensical combination, the whole point of open source is that you can make your own copy with your own changes and distribute it to people
        bombela 2y ago
        I guess it's readable source instead of open source.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        TeMPOraL 2y ago
  - kermatt 2y ago
    Openwashing: https://web.archive.org/web/20241008220257/https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/blob/community/LICENSE.md#5-restrictions https://web.archive.org/web/20241008220257/https://github.co...
    - ezekg 2y ago
      Did the authors claim to be open source somewhere I must have missed? Without that, I don't see how this is open-washing...
      - fluoridation 2y ago
        Yes, actually. >The Winamp Collaborative License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.
        ezekg 2y ago
        Hmm, I must have missed that. I stand corrected, then. Perhaps the author thinks copyleft can be divorced from open source? They didn't claim to be open source here, but they do claim to be (very strong?) copyleft -- almost like a single-source copyleft kind of interpretation. But yeah, I get it now. ty
        fluoridation 2y ago
        As others have pointed out, it's very likely the "author" was an LLM. It's clear no lawyer ever gave this a once-over. I can easily imagine a manager telling ChatGPT "write a copyleft license that doesn't allow other people making modified versions of my software".
  - ndiddy 2y ago
    Llama Group laid off the team who had been working on Winamp and then released the source code under a license that bans users from distributing modified versions of the code themselves and assigns copyright on any contributions to Llama Group. IMO this absolutely points to them hoping that releasing the source code would let them offload Winamp maintenance onto the community.
    - ezekg 2y ago
      That's entirely speculation. They could just as well be winding down the project entirely, which has happened before.
      - fluoridation 2y ago
        It's not speculation. Someone claiming to have been an employee posted a comment to the article. It's impossible to verify, but personally I have no problem believing it played out as they say.
      - mise_en_place 2y ago
        If they're winding it down, then they may as well make it fully OSS, and ditch the components that are proprietary that they can't release. Attribution can get complex with old software IP, especially when using such proprietary components.
  - krisoft 2y ago
    > Why do discussions about source-available models often turn into accusations of soliciting free labor? Simple. Because the company literally wrote this in their press release[1] at the time they were releasing it. Direct quote “This is an invitation to global collaboration, where developers worldwide can contribute their expertise, ideas, and passion to help this iconic software evolve.” Further direct quote: “With this initiative to open the source code, Winamp is taking the next step in its history, allowing its users to contribute directly to improving the product.” They are literaly soliciting free labor. This is how the press release ends: “Interested developers can now make themselves known at the following address: about.winamp.com/free-llama” what is that if not a solicitation for free labour? > anybody who does contribute does so under their own free will, under the terms set forth by the license So wait. Just so I understand. Is your problem that you think they are falsely accused of soliciting free labour? Or that they are indeed fully were soliciting free labour but you would rather not want people harsh your vibes by discussing this? 1: https://www.llama-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-05-16-open-source-en.pdf https://www.llama-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-...
    - ezekg 2y ago
      My point is simple: if someone contributes, they accept the terms. Complaining about ‘free labor’ is irrelevant. The contributor chose to contribute; if they didn’t agree with the terms, they wouldn’t have. Nobody is asking for an uninvolved third-party to police the collaboration. I'd also be careful attributing these actions to malice without further motive, when it very well could also be attributed to excitement i.r.t. sharing and collaborating on Winamp's source code in public, under a single-source.
      - chii 2y ago
        > attributing these actions to malice without further motive these actions could be construed as malice, but i would definitely attribute them as greed. AKA, they want contributions, but want to prevent anyone else but themselves from being able to commercially exploit it.
      - krisoft 2y ago
  - notpushkin 2y ago
    I agree that as an author, you’re free to pick any license you want. If you want to release source code just to allow PRs, and don’t market it as open source – go for it. Fair Source is a better model in that regard, kudos for using that! And I personally have no problem with using the term “open source” for that, although just using the distinct term is better. In case of Winamp though, they: 1. Used a crayon license that prohibited pretty much everything and was indeed focused on collaboration 2. Made a press release about “opening up” the source – not using the exact phrase “open source” (except in the URL: https://about.winamp.com/press/article/winamp-open-source-code https://about.winamp.com/press/article/winamp-open-source-co...), but misleading nonetheless 3. Weren’t even the original authors This is openwashing, and it is ridiculous, and they were rightfully shamed.
octacat 2y ago
Maybe they _should_ think before making code public - it is generally a good idea ;)
skeeter2020 2y ago
I think we all would have been better off, with time & energy better spent if they had never tried to release like this, so discouraging others of trying to do the same is a feature, not a bug. For example, consider how much time I spent reading your comment & composing this response; it would have been better spent closing my eyes and taking some deep breaths for a minute or two.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by fooqux 2y ago

fluoridation 2y ago

All of this happened because the company didn't want to open source the code, they wanted to openwash it and get free labor from the open source community. If another company wants to do the same and they decide not to because of this, nothing of value is lost.

ezekg 2y ago
> they wanted to openwash it and get free labor from the open source community. This is such a ridiculous accusation. Why do discussions about source-available models often turn into accusations of soliciting free labor? Why can't authors just provide access to source code, but reserve some or all of the distribution rights? It's their code, after all. Nobody is forcing 'the open source community' to contribute under the terms set forth; anybody who does contribute does so under their own free will, under the terms set forth by the license. It doesn't always have to be a binary choice between open source and closed source, nor does it justify further accusations of "openwashing."
- filcuk 2y ago
  What is the point of 'open source' where you're not even allowed to fork the damn repo?
  - Alupis 2y ago
    To read and learn what a very successful project's codebase looks like. I find value in every one of these types of releases. Sometimes that value is just a chuckle... knowing even successful codebases are as duct-taped together as all the rest.
  - tcfhgj 2y ago
    In case of security sensitive software, you could verify the security claims. Look at Apple, they claim E2EE, but don't even allow to verify that defeating the purpose of E2EE entirely (lack of need to trust the provider)
    - mort96 2y ago
      You can do that with source-available software too, I'm not sure where you think open source comes in?
      - tcfhgj 2y ago
        My point is that Open Source isn't necessary for it, aka "open source without forking" is sufficient
        mort96 2y ago
        There is no such thing as "open source without forking". It's source available.
        tcfhgj 2y ago
        I don't care how you call it. My comment was a reply to a comment which described it this way.
- fluoridation 2y ago
  You can make a source available license and no one will criticize you for it. You put in the license "you can look, but you can't touch". When it becomes openwashing is when you instead write "you can look but you can't compete with us, also feel free to give us a hand". Let me cite: > * Contribution to Project: You are encouraged to contribute improvements, enhancements, and bug fixes back to the project. Contributions must be submitted to the official repository and will be reviewed and incorporated at the discretion of the maintainers. > * Assignment of Rights: By submitting contributions, you agree that all intellectual property rights, including copyright, in your contributions are assigned to Winamp. You hereby grant Winamp a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, copy, modify, and distribute your contributions as part of the software, without any compensation to you. > * Waiver of Rights: You waive any rights to claim authorship of the contributions or to object to any distortion, mutilation, or other modifications of the contributions. >Nobody is forcing 'the open source community' to contribute under the terms set forth; anybody who does contribute does so under their own free will, under the terms set forth by the license. And? Yes, we're all acting out of our own free will. The owners of Winamp decided out of their own free will to release their code under those terms, and I'm criticizing them for trying to take advantage of people also out of my own free will. What's the issue?
  - ezekg 2y ago
    > When it becomes openwashing is when you instead write "you can look but you can't compete with us, also feel free to give us a hand". With all due respect, I don't think you know what open-washing means.
    - fluoridation 2y ago
      Well, enlighten me. What does it mean, and why was this not openwashing?
- KetoManx64 2y ago
  Didn't the original version of their license state that you weren't allowed to do anything with the code, including forking it? It was "source available" but you're not even allowed to make a local copy of the code to look at it. People as a whole don't mind source available, Louis Rossman's FUTO's software is all source available and while they got a small minority of FOSS diehards complaining about it, they're doing great. Immich, FUTO Keyboard, FUTO Voice input, and Grayjay, are all source available, but the company was honest and didn't try to pull stupid shit like "you're not allowed to fork the code" in their license.
  - ezekg 2y ago
    To me, this seems to be a misunderstanding of the license text and the author's intent. The original license simply reserved all distribution rights. People assumed you couldn't even fork into a public GitHub repo in order to make pull requests, but afaict, the author clarified that the intent was not to prevent forking on GitHub, but to prevent redistribution of the forked software instead of contributing the changes back upstream. The right to make changes to the software for internal use was always there, afaict.
    - mort96 2y ago
      How the hell do you combine "open source" and "all distribution rights are reserved for the original developer"? That's a nonsensical combination, the whole point of open source is that you can make your own copy with your own changes and distribute it to people
      - bombela 2y ago
        I guess it's readable source instead of open source.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - TeMPOraL 2y ago
- kermatt 2y ago
  Openwashing: https://web.archive.org/web/20241008220257/https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/blob/community/LICENSE.md#5-restrictions https://web.archive.org/web/20241008220257/https://github.co...
  - ezekg 2y ago
    Did the authors claim to be open source somewhere I must have missed? Without that, I don't see how this is open-washing...
    - fluoridation 2y ago
      Yes, actually. >The Winamp Collaborative License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.
      - ezekg 2y ago
        Hmm, I must have missed that. I stand corrected, then. Perhaps the author thinks copyleft can be divorced from open source? They didn't claim to be open source here, but they do claim to be (very strong?) copyleft -- almost like a single-source copyleft kind of interpretation. But yeah, I get it now. ty
        fluoridation 2y ago
        As others have pointed out, it's very likely the "author" was an LLM. It's clear no lawyer ever gave this a once-over. I can easily imagine a manager telling ChatGPT "write a copyleft license that doesn't allow other people making modified versions of my software".
- ndiddy 2y ago
  Llama Group laid off the team who had been working on Winamp and then released the source code under a license that bans users from distributing modified versions of the code themselves and assigns copyright on any contributions to Llama Group. IMO this absolutely points to them hoping that releasing the source code would let them offload Winamp maintenance onto the community.
  - ezekg 2y ago
    That's entirely speculation. They could just as well be winding down the project entirely, which has happened before.
    - fluoridation 2y ago
      It's not speculation. Someone claiming to have been an employee posted a comment to the article. It's impossible to verify, but personally I have no problem believing it played out as they say.
    - mise_en_place 2y ago
      If they're winding it down, then they may as well make it fully OSS, and ditch the components that are proprietary that they can't release. Attribution can get complex with old software IP, especially when using such proprietary components.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > Why do discussions about source-available models often turn into accusations of soliciting free labor? Simple. Because the company literally wrote this in their press release[1] at the time they were releasing it. Direct quote “This is an invitation to global collaboration, where developers worldwide can contribute their expertise, ideas, and passion to help this iconic software evolve.” Further direct quote: “With this initiative to open the source code, Winamp is taking the next step in its history, allowing its users to contribute directly to improving the product.” They are literaly soliciting free labor. This is how the press release ends: “Interested developers can now make themselves known at the following address: about.winamp.com/free-llama” what is that if not a solicitation for free labour? > anybody who does contribute does so under their own free will, under the terms set forth by the license So wait. Just so I understand. Is your problem that you think they are falsely accused of soliciting free labour? Or that they are indeed fully were soliciting free labour but you would rather not want people harsh your vibes by discussing this? 1: https://www.llama-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-05-16-open-source-en.pdf https://www.llama-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-...
  - ezekg 2y ago
    My point is simple: if someone contributes, they accept the terms. Complaining about ‘free labor’ is irrelevant. The contributor chose to contribute; if they didn’t agree with the terms, they wouldn’t have. Nobody is asking for an uninvolved third-party to police the collaboration. I'd also be careful attributing these actions to malice without further motive, when it very well could also be attributed to excitement i.r.t. sharing and collaborating on Winamp's source code in public, under a single-source.
    - chii 2y ago
      > attributing these actions to malice without further motive these actions could be construed as malice, but i would definitely attribute them as greed. AKA, they want contributions, but want to prevent anyone else but themselves from being able to commercially exploit it.
    - krisoft 2y ago
- notpushkin 2y ago
  I agree that as an author, you’re free to pick any license you want. If you want to release source code just to allow PRs, and don’t market it as open source – go for it. Fair Source is a better model in that regard, kudos for using that! And I personally have no problem with using the term “open source” for that, although just using the distinct term is better. In case of Winamp though, they: 1. Used a crayon license that prohibited pretty much everything and was indeed focused on collaboration 2. Made a press release about “opening up” the source – not using the exact phrase “open source” (except in the URL: https://about.winamp.com/press/article/winamp-open-source-code https://about.winamp.com/press/article/winamp-open-source-co...), but misleading nonetheless 3. Weren’t even the original authors This is openwashing, and it is ridiculous, and they were rightfully shamed.

octacat 2y ago

Maybe they _should_ think before making code public - it is generally a good idea ;)

skeeter2020 2y ago

I think we all would have been better off, with time & energy better spent if they had never tried to release like this, so discouraging others of trying to do the same is a feature, not a bug. For example, consider how much time I spent reading your comment & composing this response; it would have been better spent closing my eyes and taking some deep breaths for a minute or two.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]