You must log in or register to comment.
And it’s available on Linux!
WinAmp making their source code ‘source available’ instead of open source, and then dropping this phrase:
The release of the Winamp player’s source code will enable developers from all over the world to actively participate in its evolution and improvement.
Yeah I don’t think so
Yup, as much as I like Grayjay, I’m not going to help development much because it’s “source available” instead of open source. There was an annoying bug I wanted fixed, and I was willing to go set up my dev environment and track it down, but they don’t seem interested in contributions, so I won’t make the effort.
Likewise for WinAmp. The main benefit to it being “source available” is that I can recompile it and researchers can look for bugs. That’s it. They’re not going to get developers interested.
Even if they accept patches, contributing still sounds like a bad deal. It’s free labor for some company. FOSS at minimum means the right to fork, precisely what “source available” seeks to deny.
Leaving aside the question of winamp vs comparable programs, does anyone even care about desktop music players any more? I’m a throwback and use command line players, but I thought the cool kids these days use phones for stuff like that.
I understand there is some technical obstacle to porting Rockbox to Android, but idk what it is and haven’t tried to look into it.
I look at ‘source available’ software as the right to review the code yourself to ensure there’s no malicious behavior, not for community development.
You mean if you build it yourself? I guess that is something, but it is still conceivable to sneak stuff in. Look at that xzlib backdoor from a few weeks ago.
Is there any way to verify that the product in deployment is built from the same source? I’m guessing hash values but I still think it can be faked.
Alright, Winamp. You can go be forgotten forever now.
Fondly remembered forever. As it was around 2000…
That does not whip the llamas ass.
Winamp you were relevant for just a moment and then… well, back you go to cute memes about the olden times
And now I’m curious how Winamp actually makes money.
**Edit
Just went to the website, it’s a subscription Spotify knock off now. Still doesn’t explain who are the people that actually pay for this.
The same ones who still pay for AOL
For those that don’t know, they are going to release something called FreeLlama which might be FOSS (no public info as to what the license actually will be).
Winamp says that they still want to control ‘what features’ go into winamp and it’ll remain proprietary. I assume they really just want people to contribute interesting things to FreeLlama and then put the contribution into Winamp.
The license probably won’t be FOSS because they probably aren’t going to want anyone contributing to own copyright to the code that they are committing.
It is odd because FOSS contributors aren’t really known for being OK with this sort of thing in the past, so I doubt they’re going to get much out of it. Maybe it’s a Hail Mary and they’ll end up blaming people for not freely giving up their devtime and creativity to a company that wants to make money on it.
Is it important? It was a cool program 30 years ago but it’s just a playback UI right?
It’s not the old program anymore, and it already leaked a long time ago. It was obvious that the new one wouldn’t be open.
It’s a little bit sad to me that Winamp collapsed just a year or two before smart phones really took off because it’s interface and customizability were pretty well suited to the app format of smart phones. And now that the code and design are owned by a company that’s being run by greedy morons there is likely never going to be anything resembling the original available for the phone app market.
I just use VLC on my phone these days. It works, no bullshit ads, and no glitches.
VLC is always respectable. I’ve been using AIMP. It lets you import folders as playlists and there’s not an ad in sight, so it won me over.
its* interface and customizability were
Even outside of this obviously either clueless or AI-fabricated post, I’m still not convinced that it’ll be OSS, in the way that we expect it to be. The phrasing used in announcement leads me to believing that they’ll use some license, that allows them draconian control over the source. It’ll be “open” as in being able to see it, but not really fork, or meaningfully contribute.
Reverse engineer it.
Make an open source version that does the same.
Ai now makes it possible, since ai generated content is not copyright able
There’s countless desktop music players out there, so there’s no real need to reverse engineer it
And it’s not a particularly interesting application anyway. I’d only want to hack on it for nostalgia, and if there are any barriers to doing that, I’ll just use a different app.
Why would they call the open version ‘openllama’? Isn’t llama that ai model?
Edit: Thanks for the downvotes people, I’m sorry for not knowing a meme in a language that’s not my native from before I was born
