Conversation

The Winamp source code is here!

(and it has a horrendous license that people are rightfully complaining about already)

https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp

3
1
0

@eramdam also: they ship with Qt5 Commercial DLLs...so they are violating someone elses license here too

lmaoooo

1
0
0

@eramdam also, not just that...there's multiple libraries with license headers that explicitly state no sharing etc.

funniest OSS release

but still *cloned for safety* :3c

0
0
0

So far:
* License was probably not lawyered, so it contradicts itself a lot, even though they probably meant "redistributions need to drop all branding and attachment to Winamp" which is fair
* The license violates GitHub terms of service, because the ToS grant the right to fork for every public repository
* The source includes commercial or non-distributable libraries
* SHOUTcast server side code is included in the repo (lol???)
* Published all codesigning utilities (and certs + pws, yikes)

1
0
0

Funniest bit:

"Forking is not allowed" vs. "Contributions encouraged"

On GitHub, that requires a fork however 🤔

or do they want us to use git send-email?

3
0
0
@pixel i think they mean making derived software, not github forks.
1
0
0

@newt well, their license explicitly states that forking is not allowed 😄

0
0
0

Our friends at Winamp do not seem to know git that much, do they?

Lection, the effectiveness of a "Remove closed source code" commit:

https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/commit/0a4b7d32d090696e5aab8de9c61dda9dab76aabf

1
0
0

Jef is hard at work trying to remove the SHOUTcast code from the repository

after merging it back in again...

https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/commit/1be04037cdba95396eef7728134043ba3ee6fbf4

2
0
0
@pixel comfypopcorn The issues just keep getting better. It seems like they also have some Dolby stuff in there, like proprietary stuff.... Oh boy.
0
0
1

Winamp, it really whips the authority of their executables.

They accidentally pushed all codesigning stuff, including signature passwords into the repo as well blobcatnotlikethis

Edit: The keys expired in June, so not that useful to cause trouble, but still quite the blunder I'd say.

https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/tree/community/Src/codesign

2
0
0
@pixel they really shipped *everything*
0
0
3

Actually, I am highly doubting *accidental* at this point, but the poor employee who just remembered that Winamp wanted to release their code today just went and slapped EVERYTHING into git.

I'm a bit in a rollercoaster of emotions of thinking this is catastrophic and catastrophically hilarious.

1
0
1

@pixel I think this is a terminology problem, when they say forking they must mean a separately maintained version, not a github fork.

1
0
0

@porglezomp it most likely is, but that's what is written in their license.

As mentioned above, probably nothing a software/publishing lawyer looked over.

0
0
0

More discoveries...Gracenote Client IDs? Not sure if they are still valid nor useful to any extent (they are used for client registration, I guess)

https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/blob/c0ffc1d59eacf702fd6efcc622ff7992c1f6898c/Src/gracenote/GracenoteApi.cpp#L135-L149

2
0
0

@pixel i love it that the license explicitly forbids forking, but the repo has 200 forks already 😆

1
0
0

@ttk AFAIK you can't disable forking on GitHub at all, so what can they do :P

1
0
0
@pixel @ttk also I think github's tos requires that you allow your code to be forked
2
0
0

@mikoto @ttk it's kind of implied if it can't be disabled, they basically say in the ToS that you grant the right for your public code to be forked, you can't revoke that right with a license

(I mean, you could, but not by hosting on GitHub)

0
0
1
@mikoto @pixel @ttk you say that as if Radionomy has any fucking idea what they're doing and how terms of service and code licenses work
0
0
1

@pixel oh my God what a mess......

1
0
0

@tabby absolute chaos, but to the benefit of all of us!

0
0
0

Looking at the repo a day after now...or more or less half a day, I guess...

i hate GitHub making stuff easily accessible, because even if they guy who maintains it did a lot of mishaps, the license sucks and doesn't really know git...that's not much of a reason to vandalise issues and PRs.

0
0
0