2 ms·

Isn't it more apt to say that the people who donated the axe to the museum were the same people who originally made it, and that the axe was illegal when it was

by mort96 2y ago

Isn't it more apt to say that the people who donated the axe to the museum were the same people who originally made it, and that the axe was illegal when it was made as well as today? I may totally have missed details here, I haven't paid attention much, so please do correct me if I'm wrong

weinzierl 2y ago
This is a good question and I have to admit that I have not thoroughly researched it. My understanding is that the original creators (Justin Frankel and Dmitry Boldyrev, later Nullsoft) the people who spoiled it (AOL) and the finder (Radionomy = Llama Group) are separate entities. Most of the blame should be with the people who spoiled it, and while it doesn't excuse their deeds they are unsurprising from a historical context. The current owners of Winamp share some blame too, but I see it more in the neglect of due diligence when they acquired Winamp and less in the release of the source. Arguably I see more incompetence (which, of course, is no defense against punishment) than malice in the later. Finally, that the original authors kept the Winamp source clean is a reasonable and likely assumption, but as far as I know there is no 100% way to be sure.
- legacynl 2y ago
  > and I have to admit that I have not thoroughly researched it So basically anything you say is speculation? Im going to add my own unfounded speculation by claiming that the original winamp source did actually contain licence violations which is why the project was never re-released after being acquired by AOL. Only after buying the project did AOL realise that the code wasn't usable as-is, so it needed further investment to rewrite and replace all the violations, and since at that point the value of local media-players was quickly diminishing they just let it be.
  - weinzierl 2y ago
    "So basically anything you say is speculation?" No, just that it might not be the complete picture. Until the original source from the Nullsoft days surfaces, we do not know, and certainly should not make unfounded speculations.

by mort96 2y ago

weinzierl 2y ago

This is a good question and I have to admit that I have not thoroughly researched it. My understanding is that the original creators (Justin Frankel and Dmitry Boldyrev, later Nullsoft) the people who spoiled it (AOL) and the finder (Radionomy = Llama Group) are separate entities. Most of the blame should be with the people who spoiled it, and while it doesn't excuse their deeds they are unsurprising from a historical context. The current owners of Winamp share some blame too, but I see it more in the neglect of due diligence when they acquired Winamp and less in the release of the source. Arguably I see more incompetence (which, of course, is no defense against punishment) than malice in the later. Finally, that the original authors kept the Winamp source clean is a reasonable and likely assumption, but as far as I know there is no 100% way to be sure.

legacynl 2y ago
> and I have to admit that I have not thoroughly researched it So basically anything you say is speculation? Im going to add my own unfounded speculation by claiming that the original winamp source did actually contain licence violations which is why the project was never re-released after being acquired by AOL. Only after buying the project did AOL realise that the code wasn't usable as-is, so it needed further investment to rewrite and replace all the violations, and since at that point the value of local media-players was quickly diminishing they just let it be.
- weinzierl 2y ago
  "So basically anything you say is speculation?" No, just that it might not be the complete picture. Until the original source from the Nullsoft days surfaces, we do not know, and certainly should not make unfounded speculations.