Alphane Moon@lemmy.ml to Open Source@lemmy.mlEnglish · 7 months agoWinamp has announced that it is opening up its source code to enable collaborative development of its legendary player for Windows.about.winamp.comexternal-linkmessage-square70fedilinkarrow-up1634arrow-down19file-textcross-posted to: lealternative@feddit.ittechnology@hexbear.nethackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fanstechnology@civilloquy.comtechnology@lemmy.world
arrow-up1625arrow-down1external-linkWinamp has announced that it is opening up its source code to enable collaborative development of its legendary player for Windows.about.winamp.comAlphane Moon@lemmy.ml to Open Source@lemmy.mlEnglish · 7 months agomessage-square70fedilinkfile-textcross-posted to: lealternative@feddit.ittechnology@hexbear.nethackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fanstechnology@civilloquy.comtechnology@lemmy.world
minus-squareRobotToasterlinkfedilinkarrow-up130·7 months agoIt doesn’t say what license they are going to use, so it may not be open source. The wording is very weaselly.
minus-squaremonobot@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up49arrow-down10·7 months agoThis is news from September and linked blog post from December. Nothing happened.
minus-squareinvisiblegorilla@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up55arrow-down2·7 months ago Winamp has announced that on 24 September 2024, the application’s source code will be open to developers worldwide.
minus-squareXabis@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up31arrow-down1·7 months ago Winamp has announced that on 24 September 2024, the application’s source code will be open to developers worldwide. The date is given on the page, which hasn’t lapsed yet.
minus-squarenilloc@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up23·7 months agoThey’re probably spending intervening 10 months cleaning all the embarrassing comments out of the code before the initial commit.
minus-squareAlphane Moon@lemmy.mlOPlinkfedilinkarrow-up22arrow-down2·7 months agoGood find, I honestly didn’t notice that this was from Dec 2023.
minus-squarenoodlejetski@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up2·7 months agoit shows “Dec 16, 1” when I open the link, but the first time I saw someone post it, the date on the screenshot said “May 16, 2024 - 08:30 CEST”: https://social.treehouse.systems/@amie/112452636130622939
minus-squaren2burns@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up23arrow-down1·7 months agoIMHO, it sounds like it’ll be “Source Available.” Especially Winamp will remain the owner of the software and will decide on the innovations made in the official version.
minus-squareKISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·7 months agoWould this allow a fork under a different name or would it have to be rewritten, replacing all original code, like Unix?
minus-squareChewy@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up6·edit-27 months agoIf they chose an open source license, a fork under a different name would be possible (else it’s not open source). Their wording is ambiguous, so maybe they only talk about keeping the name/trademark to themselves, which is definitely a good choice. It’s also not clear if they accept contributions, but they’ll likely keep deciding what features should get added or not. At least that’s how I understand it.
It doesn’t say what license they are going to use, so it may not be open source. The wording is very weaselly.
This is news from September and linked blog post from December. Nothing happened.
The date is given on the page, which hasn’t lapsed yet.
They’re probably spending intervening 10 months cleaning all the embarrassing comments out of the code before the initial commit.
Good find, I honestly didn’t notice that this was from Dec 2023.
it shows “Dec 16, 1” when I open the link, but the first time I saw someone post it, the date on the screenshot said “May 16, 2024 - 08:30 CEST”: https://social.treehouse.systems/@amie/112452636130622939
IMHO, it sounds like it’ll be “Source Available.” Especially
Would this allow a fork under a different name or would it have to be rewritten, replacing all original code, like Unix?
If they chose an open source license, a fork under a different name would be possible (else it’s not open source).
Their wording is ambiguous, so maybe they only talk about keeping the name/trademark to themselves, which is definitely a good choice.
It’s also not clear if they accept contributions, but they’ll likely keep deciding what features should get added or not.
At least that’s how I understand it.