The Winamp source code is here!
(and it has a horrendous license that people are rightfully complaining about already)
@eramdam also: they ship with Qt5 Commercial DLLs...so they are violating someone elses license here too
lmaoooo
@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
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)
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?
@newt well, their license explicitly states that forking is not allowed 😄
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
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
Winamp, it really whips the authority of their executables.
They accidentally pushed all codesigning stuff, including signature passwords into the repo as well
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
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.
@pixel I think this is a terminology problem, when they say forking they must mean a separately maintained version, not a github fork.
@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.
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)
@pixel i love it that the license explicitly forbids forking, but the repo has 200 forks already 😆
@ttk AFAIK you can't disable forking on GitHub at all, so what can they do :P
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.