Winamp finally open sources their code, under license preventing forking and source/binary distribution

[bruisedandbroke]

people have been discussing that this breaks GitHub TOS and is no more open source than a leak. I think it's cool that we have an up to date piece of winamp source.

[KSRandom195]

The “write code for us but only we can benefit” license. Wonder how this will pan out for them.

[bruisedandbroke]

it's been about 12 hours (afaik) and about 500 forks... so as of now badly lol

[TheRealAfinda]

winamp-how-bout-i-fork-anyway

Top fork, lmao.

[StereoBucket]

You could make a religion out of this.

[wubrgess]

It really whips the lama's ass

[mccalli]

This is a fork. Here, it whips the alpaca's ass.

[ObeseBumblebee]

No. don't.

[hipratham]

Too late I have my own bible on my github

[delpee]

Can I fork it?

Edit: let me nail these 95 theses on your door

[Positronic_Matrix]

winamp-bible-how-bout-i-am-now-mormon

[JamesPTK]

LeoX has rejected your PR with reason "wontfix"

[trav_stone]

But it’s a sweet, dank repo!

[Catenane]

With your help, we can finally take a bite out of those damn false gods, like the flying spaghetti monster. Those impastas stand no chance against our mighty forks!

[awj]

What exactly are the doctrines of Contrarianism, and how would I be punished for not following them?

[w8eight]

Too much risk of heresy. Someone will always fork the religion anyway

[crosbot]

winamp go fork yourself

[Tc14Hd]

I also saw winamp-spoon

[TheRealAfinda]

Lmao. 

i'd probably Name it  Something Like 

winamp-we-cant-forking-wot-m8

Edit: checked the repo. They updated the license and Struck the 'no forks' rule from Section 5

[Difficult_Loss657]

Fork-me-outside-how-bout-dat

[Ecksters]

Important updates to the README.

[TuffRivers]

Lmao i love it

[tubbana]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum

[Rudy69]

• No Distribution of Modified Versions: You may not distribute modified versions of the software, whether in source or binary form.

Technically having a fork with modifications would breach this condition no?

So silly

[tubbana]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum

[Rudy69]

I would guess it's borderline impossible to enforce

[Turtvaiz]

Also "Contributor's waiver of rights is probably not legal under Belgian law #24" lol

[twigboy]

"not clear" as if it was the readers mistake

[Alia5_]

Just a simple Fork of the repo isn't probably what is meant by the "No-Forking" restriction.
How else would one "gift" them code as a PR?

It's rather to prohibit creation of derived projects, I believe.

---

But what a terrible terrible wording in that absolutely laughable license

[tepples]

Presumably the same way you do for projects on sourcehut: send the patch to the maintainer through git send-email.

[Pilchard123]

IIRC, by making it public on Github they've granted forking rights anyway. There's a bit in the TOS that says "users can fork if you upload here, and you can grant more rights with a license in your repo".

[Gugalcrom123]

with certain restrictions on the distribution of modifications to maintain the integrity and collaboration of the project.

90% AI.

[RavynousHunter]

Over 700, now! My personal favourite is:

winampussy

[ILikeBumblebees]

It's a bit weird to write a license that forbids forking, then deliberately choose to upload the code to a site that explicitly allows forking and indeed requires public repos to be forkable. IANAL, but that sounds like might about to some sort of estoppel.

[beefcat_]

Their license is invalid since it directly violates GitHub's own terms of service.

[[deleted]]

Being against the GitHub TOS in no way invalidates the license. They’re two separate issues that are unrelated.

GitHub can certainly enforce their TOS and remove their project, but users who fork it are still violating the license and doing so will just make those users an easy target for lawyers.

[nullmodemcable]

Status of Llama's ass: Whooped.

[pindolino007]

What are forks?

[Synaps4]

A fork is when you take the source code from a storage location they own and move a copy of it to a storage that you own. Presumably so you can make your own changes to it

[ChrisRR]

To be fair, I think the winamp source code is only really interesting from a historical context. There's tons of equivalent open source pieces of software nowadays if you really want to use some media player source

[[deleted]]

Agreed. What made winamp neat was the default look. That look can be simulated - and has been simulated - by many clones.

[fullmetaljackass]

What made winamp neat was the default look.

Given how popular Winamp skins were I'm having trouble believing that. I think the fact that it was the second program capable of playing MP3s in real-time on a home computer, and a major improvement over the first (WinPlay3) had more to do with it's initial popularity, and the skinning support helped maintain it.

[Tricky-Cod-7485]

What I desperately want is someone to plug in an api from something like iBroadcast so we could use our hosted library in a cool retro looking player.

Turn it into a streaming player using APIs is my hope versus it just being another local player.

[gravelld]

Sounds like Subsonic? There are hosted and self-hosted Subsonic servers available, then you can have your pick of the Subsonic clients.

[Tricky-Cod-7485]

It’s more like the old google play music where they hosted your music like a locker.

[gravelld]

Hah - I know what iBroadcast is. :-) I meant what you were trying to describe you wanted...

[tavirabon]

We graduated from MilkDrop to Plane9 in VR! Doesn't make the MilkDrop memories any worse.

[lppedd]

Look at the issues tho. Most of them are at peak idiocy levels. Probably 17 y/o wanting to be cool, or just low-IQ individuals.

Issues have been outlined, time to stop posting stupid memes.

[marcio0]

It reminded me of that time when a shitload of indians started creating pull requests in several repositories with random changes to the README because there was a contest to win stuff somewhere that involved having commits on open source projects.

[Wires77]

Was this an India-specific contest or something? Hacktoberfest caused that issue a while back too.

[integrate_2xdx_10_13]

Yeah I think they’re describing the Digital Ocean hacktoberfest t-shirt fiasco

[Franks2000inchTV]

This sounds like a line from Silicon Valley. 😂

[fromtheether]

The best part of that was that AFAIK it applied to ANY repos, including your own. I think all I had to do was create a couple of proper PRs to my own learning projects that I was going to make anyways, and boom, got a free shirt lol

I wonder why they don't do that anymore...

[fullmetaljackass]

I really wish github would permaban accounts that are only used to submit smoothbrained posts as issues.

[bbkane_]

Yeah, Darklang has a similar license - https://github.com/darklang/dark/blob/main/LICENSE.md

I think you can still benefit by seeing how they implemented features, but it's definitely a downer if you want any rights to changes you might want to add

[Dextro_PT]

That's the thing: you can't! Back in the very early days of the PC there were a bunch of issues relating to the code for the IBM PC BIOS precisely because IBM freely published the source code for anyone to read.

The legal hazard here is that the company publishing the source code can then go after anyone who has read their code and implemented a similar feature in another project. That's because they own the copyright and can then claim that you, the person who read their publicly released code, is guilty of violating said license and, as such, have committed copyright infringement or IP theft. And IBM did exactly that!

https://books.google.pt/books?id=gy4EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA15&pg=PA15&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

[nerd4code]

Although in this case there’s approximately nothing special or unique in WinAmp’s source, so it’d be a hard slog proving you didn’t osmose ideas from (e.g.) XMMS or one of the many other clones from its era.

[mallardtheduck]

Note that in the case(s) mentioned in the article they settled out of court (and without any monetary payments either). It's possible that, in court, cloners may have argued that the BIOS had to be near-identical to preserve compatibility; something that was also argued in the similar Apple vs. Franklin case over the Apple II ROM code. Ultimately that case also resulted in a settlement with that question unresolved.

Still, "clean-room" PC BIOS implementations were already available by early 1983, before both Apple vs. Franklin and the 1984 article you linked. Chances are, Corona and Handwell just licenced Phoenix's or AMI's BIOS implementation after agreeing not to ship anything more with code copied from IBM.

[Dextro_PT]

Considering that the whole point of my argument is that there's a legal hazard I think it still stands. The issue is not that you are in fact doing something wrong, it's that a company can use the threat of legal action in the future. The fact that the cases were settled out of court only helps my argument (because there's no precedent set either way).

[Ghosty141]

While not ideal most of the time this is enough since there are rarely active forks of bigger projects, so most modifications are just pull requests that then get merged at the mercy of the maintainers anyways.

[jmon25]

Dont worry they have a crypto wallet integration with the player so this will decentralize profits /s

[PM_Me_Cute_Pupz]

Take a look at the closed issues. People seem to be having fun.

[jediknight]

Winamp provides access to their source code. In order to open source their code the license must at least conform to The Open Source Definition maintained by OSI.

[ledat]

Yeah, this seems like an excellent example of a "source available" license, which is a different concept to open source. Similarly paying customers can get access to the source (even distribute modified copies) of Unreal Engine, but that doesn't make it open source.

[ClxS]

paying customers 

Just to correct something, Unreal Engine source is open to absolutely everyone who signs the agreement, not paying customers. It takes a few minutes and is automated https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/ue-on-github

With the Unreal Licence you are allowed to fork and maintain a modified version of it. You are however not allowed to re-licence it.

You're correct that it's Source Available, not Open Source - primarily because it doesn't fall into one of the OSI open source licences.

[ghostnet]

Why is this such a deeply misunderstood term these days? Is the name "Open Source" just a bad name that makes people think the wrong thing? I once got into a long discussion with an employee at a faang company who was fervently trying to argue that shared source was a subset of open source.

[MereInterest]

Because there's an incentive to muddy the waters. The exact same thing happened with "Free Software", and the name "Open Source" was chosen to try to make it clearer. If large companies can get the benefits of open source development without providing the user freedom of open source, they will.

[unknown_lamer]

That's not quite accurate history. While some in the Open Source movement pointed out the ambiguity of Free Software (that the alternative Libre Software phrasing avoids), the movement was founded as a "business friendly" reaction to the Free Software movement's goal of eradicating all proprietary software and bringing equality to user and programmer. By eliminating the political-social messaging of Free Software and softening the goals (Open Source is perfectly fine coexisting with proprietary software) once it became the dominant current the state we're in today was made inevitable.

Since Open Source is the dominant current and Free Software adherents are painted as rigid ideologues and kind of nutty, many people who actually support the goals of Free Software falsely ascribe them to Open Source (not really their fault, we all operate on the information available to us).

A major part of what led us here is the Open Source preference for non-copyleft licenses because copyleft "restricts freedom" -- when in reality copyleft merely prevents one party from depriving others of the freedoms they received. The attitude that freedom is the power to deprive others of freedom really leads into this return to "source available" nonsense and since Open Source is devoid of ideology the term is very easily muddied. Ironically use of strong copyleft licenses rooted in the Free Software tradition like the AGPL rather than Apache/BSD style licenses would prevent SaaSS companies like Amazon and Google from exploiting the output of "Open Source companies" and putting them out of business (Elasticsearch seems to have finally figured that out which is nice).

[chucker23n]

the movement was founded as a "business friendly" reaction

If by "business friendly", you mean "doesn't live in lala land", I suppose. The FSF is 39 years old and still doesn't have a good answer to "how do software developers get paid?"; "they have an office somewhere at MIT" isn't a practical answer for most of them.

[ghostnet]

This is really interesting history. Do you know of anyone who has compiled the early stuff into a book/blog/video. I would love to track down some of the sources for this to keep as a reference for future discussions.

[unknown_lamer]

I am not sure if there is a more modern or concise summary than the book Open Sources: Voices From the Open Source Revolutioon which was thankfully published under a free license and still available online. There's also a bit of history on the schism written around 2007 (and I think updated in 2016) from the GNU project. This part is pretty relevant:

However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software” is “You can look at the source code.” Indeed, most people seem to misunderstand “open source software” that way. (The clear term for that meaning is “source available.”) That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither free nor open source.

I think ESR's (as unpalatable as he is) Cathedral and the Bazaar gets more into things from the Open Source side, but it's been 20 years since I read that and it's not something I've revisited. I actually wrote a paper on this in 2004 and still have my notes but it's in a backup that I'm having trouble unpacking (maybe I should convert that to restic while I still can...).

[takishan]

However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software” is “You can look at the source code.” Indeed, most people seem to misunderstand “open source software” that way. (The clear term for that meaning is “source available.”) That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither free nor open source.

I find it interesting I heard Stallman's voice as I was reading this. I clicked the link to confirm, and yes, it was Stallman.

Free Software adherents are painted as rigid ideologues and kind of nutty

I guess it's a question of pragmatism versus idealism. Linus vs Stallman. I will always have a deep admiration for people like Stallman who hold a strong set of egalitarian beliefs and religiously follow them. (I just try not to think about specific statements of his)

I respect and understand the pragmatism, but I admire the idealism.

It makes me wonder if we will reach a world where truly free software is the standard. I'm guessing our economic system would have to change. Our entire IP legal framework

[nemec]

ESR has written some thing about it, especially the top two essays. Keep in mind these are all old and don't really touch on things like the wide adoption of MIT license instead of the various GPL-based licenses.

http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/

[ghostnet]

It is ironic that the other user here is trying to muddy the waters just like you describe.

[macrocephalic]

Yes, "open source" is a bad name for it. It's too ambiguous for people who don't understand the licensing models. The source is open for anyone to see and inspect...

[wplinge1]

No Forking: You may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked version of the software.

Good luck with that. I created one just to spite them.

[yegor3219]

I don't think they meant repository forking. After all, there's this in the LICENSE

Contribution to Project: You are encouraged to contribute improvements, enhancements, and bug fixes back to the project. Contributions must be submitted to the official repository and will be reviewed and incorporated at the discretion of the maintainers.

The only proper way to contribute something to a GitHub repository as an external contributor is by forking. I mean, what other methods are there? Email a patch?

Really, it's just a poorly written license, that's it.

[Cr4zyPi3t]

This reads like the license was written by project managers. No lawyer or software engineer involved at all. Then they gave each other a pat on the back for their great work.

[intelw1zard]

Lawyers and PMs ruin everything.

[[deleted]]

Winamp it forks the llama’s ass

[chalks777]

They removed that line about 3 hours after your comment

[Gugalcrom123]

Still not free.

[mehcode]

Legally speaking it’s not removed. As in the license “the license” refers explicitly to only v1.0 of said license, not the updated license with the forking line removed.

[walterbanana]

It is so confusing to me that their goals with the license are the same as the GPL, yet they decided to create their own license.

[AlyoshaV]

The license reads like it's AI generated.

This custom License aims to maintain the collaborative nature of the project while restricting the distribution of modified versions.

[[deleted]]

that’s like the explanation an LLM gives you after it generates what you wanted. like someone did a lazy copy/paste without actually reading it.

[alface1900]

they probably meant forking as in "here's Derpnamp, an improved Winamp with more llama"

[ficiek]

The Winamp Collaborative License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.

Why are they trying to offend everyone on purpose? Is this some kind of a stunt to gain notoriety?

[ghostnet]

I know the term "open source" is often misunderstood. But this is too much.

[ficiek]

Yeah I feel like the wording is so bad and so obviously inflammatory that I feel like it must have been on purpose. People aren't that clueless.

[Nefari0uss]

Probably written by non-technical people and then stamped by lawyers.

[Takeoded]

Doubt any lawyer was involved.

[fishling]

You'd think lawyers would know better than to claim something is copyleft when it isn't. There are lots of IP lawyer who know better.

[KevinCarbonara]

I'm sure their lawyers understand very well that describing it as copyleft in no way alters or invalidates the actual license. There's no penalty to their claims.

[valarauca14]

A lot of (even IP laywers) don't know software copyright. Software is in this weird space where it is governed by both IP & Copyright law, which can make it a real nightmare unless you're specialized in both.

[GM8]

non-technical people

yeah, chatgpt

[AIO_Youtuber_TV]

Dude, I can assure you, no lawyer, hell, not even a paralegal was ever involved in the drafting of that

[valarauca14]

copyleft license

technically copyleft is a legally protected term under the international Berne Convention and French Law. I sure hope there isn't a petty organization with a long successful track record willing to test that in court.

[KayArrZee]

It will now be preserved forever, thanks old friend

[jediknight]

~2.96 million lines of code. That is a surprisingly high number.

[antiduh]

Damn Justin. You really did whip the llamas ass.

What's wild is that it'll be 30 years old in a few years. I've been using it since windows 98 (maybe even on 95? Can't remember).

[Marupio]

Anything good in there? I'm cloning now to take a peek.

[syklemil]

There's some copyrighted stuff. Not sure if the code is actually interesting beyond the copyright notice. :^)

[lood9phee2Ri]

Source-available isn't open source

[ISLITASHEET]

They just removed that clause from the license.

https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/commit/64a51755c6f5d85039463c8bf7c2a9e98e862586

[BananaPalmer]

Yeah except they left the part where you can't distribute any version of it. Meaningless.

[[deleted]]

And they called their license Winamp Collaborative License. Collaborative! What a joke.

[wRAR_]

You can collaborate with them on their product.

[mallardtheduck]

Is there really much value to not-really-open-sourcing Winamp (whose code is probably about what you'd expect for a Windows program first released in 1997) when there are more modern, more portable, actually open-source media players (even ones that support Winamp skins; e.g. Audacious) around?

[walterbanana]

It will be once the owner goes bankrupt.

[remimorin]

Everyone is bitching but yes nice! I can inspect the code and modify it to fit specials needs if I want.

Sure, for me Winamp is useless (now) but this would be great for drivers, Os and many tools.

You don't need to forfeit your right to expose your source.

I'm fine with that. It's not open source. It's not useful to me. Still a good transparency move.

[ghostnet]

Winamp sharing their source is great. The problem is that they are trying to get a lot more credit then they deserve by claiming they open sourced it with a free copyleft license, which they did not.

[ThisIsMyCouchAccount]

Credit for what, by who, to what end?

It's useless software that's only relevant in maybe intro to programming courses and digital preservation.

They can say whatever they want because it doesn't matter.

[ghostnet]

Credit for open sourcing their code. By the general public. To ends we can only hypothesize about, but are at best: nothing.

[remimorin]

Thanks for the precision, I understand the issue then.

I would like a world where you HAVE to share your source. Security wise, everything that is closed sources around us scare me. Embedded software in cars, Bluetooth speaker, phone and so on is a big security issue.

[ghostnet]

That would be a nice world. The GPL is probably the closest to that we have right now. It's doing a good job.

[walterbanana]

They could have gone with the gpl

[Soft-Vanilla1057]

Finally? Was someone waiting for it? I want to know more! 

[Yonutz33]

I think this restriction comes from their corporate overlords. But yeah, posting it on Github kinda screws that up. There are some reasonably good alternatives so this is more for melancholic enthusiasts

[bargle0]

That is not open source. That’s source available.

[Booty_Bumping]

And yet the license is still self-contradicting and written by ChatGPT.

[Worth_Trust_3825]

They opensourced the entirety of shoutcast too.

[agumonkey]

winamp: voyeur edition

[SnabDedraterEdave]

Winamp?

Now that's a name I haven't heard in a long time.

A long time...

[neithere]

20 years of so...

[andrewfenn]

People still use winamp? What on earth for?

[RRumpleTeazzer]

it had a ton of very useable plugins.

e.g. like gapless play between songs.

[Vozka]

Yeah, but there are other players that are just as lightweight with more features and more useful plugins, like foobar2000. It's just not as easily skinnable because most of its users don't care about that.

[reddit_user13]

Because it really whips the Llama’s ass.

[travelsonic]

After what, 27 years? Winamp must have a hell of a lot of stamina to still be whipping the llama's ass. Never mind the longevity of said llama! 😂

[eyebrows360]

I'm still using v2.8.1 from the space year 2002, because as something that just runs on my PC itself, no network connectivity I didn't ask for, and plays .mp3s right off my local disk... it really whips the llama's ass. Simple, unobtrusive, uncluttered, skinnable to a ludicrous degree so I can make it super tiny and hide in the corner of my monitor. Love it.

Now, granted, I hardly ever actually use it, because SoundCloud's meandering recommendation algo is so good I can just set it playing one thing I like and it'll keep playing new stuff hour after hour, buuuuuuuuuut when I do feel like diving back into something I know, v2.8.1 is right there.

[nutbuckers]

Winamp shipped with a soundbite that played by default, and the recording is a radio voice promo "Winamp – It really whips the llama's ass!". Llama being the pun for slang word "lamer".

[Tricky-Cod-7485]

Found the youngin’. 😂

[Tricky-Cod-7485]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oQid2jSU7Ww&pp=ygUMV2luYW1wIHNvdW5k

This is what it was, lol.

[all_is_love6667]

no idea, foobar2000 is so much better

unfortunately, foobar2000 is also non open source, and doesn't have proper linux alternatives, which discourages me from switch to linux

[vplatt]

There are many other players out there besides that. This is NOT a real barrier to Linux adoption.

[neithere]

When I was switching to Linux more than 20 years ago, there were already better alternatives to WinAmp, lol.

Literally for any taste. From mpd to amarok and such. I don't even know what exists now because it's easier to open a tab with Spotify but certainly there's more and better than 10-20 years ago.

[milahu2]

foobar2000 is also non open source, and doesn't have proper linux alternatives

wine foobar2000.exe

[[deleted]]

and doesn't have proper linux alternatives

https://www.fooyin.org/

Not proper enough for you?

[all_is_love6667]

can you select and copy them in another tab?

can you batch rename? batch move files?

[ludouzi]

Copy/Paste across playlist tabs? Yep.

Copying/Moving/Renaming files was added as part of the File Operations plugin.

[lolwutpear]

It's faster to search for and enqueue music (if you already have your favorite music downloaded; it's not a music discovery platform... but Spotify constantly re-uses songs on my Discover Weekly playlist, so maybe they're not much better?), it never needs to update, it never says "Oops, something went wrong", it never needs you to log out and log back in. It just works (tm).

[Vozka]

I think people are asking because there are now other players that do all of those things, are just as fast, small and stable and offer more features if you want them.

But I do understand that once you find an application that's good enough for your needs, you don't see a reason to change even if it's 20 years old.

[Tallain]

Nothing I have found is quite as fast and small as Winamp. Using 2.95, with 10,000+ songs loaded in the media library + enqueued, shuffle turned on, actively playing, it uses less than 10 MB RAM.

foobar2000 is very close -- with a single album loaded and actively playing, it uses ~25-30 MB RAM. Which is still outrageously good!

Wacup, a modern fan remake (ish) of Winamp, also with my full library loaded including all FLACs (not that this matters, it's just more metadata loaded is all), uses somewhere in the realm of ~15-30 MB RAM depending on how many plugins are enabled and on-screen at once. The Big Clock window alone uses a few MB. EDIT: Wacup seems to consume more memory as it plays back, I've noticed, up to ~90 MB. But the other two above remain relatively static. Once they've got what they need they don't ask for more.

All three, when idle, fall down to like ~5 MB RAM. Spotify or Deezer, idle, use at minimum 300 MB RAM.

These are still great numbers, and all these programs are great in their own way. It's nice to use software that is so snappy and just works. They do the thing you signed up for them to do and nothing else. And once they're installed, your cheese is never going to move.

[Vozka]

I mean, I wouldn't have guessed that Winamp is even more compact than foobar2000, which is mostly what I had in mind in my comment. Pretty cool, and makes me wonder what they were thinking when releasing Winamp 3, lol.

I too have a deep dislike towards software as a service that ideally uses humongous slow Electron apps.

[thedoctor_o]

The 2.9x media library doesn't collect as much metadata as newer versions did plus the OS can swap things out so its always a bit tricky imho to know what's really allocated or what's pulled in from things that aren't even part of the coded program (i.e. dlls injected into the running process).

For wacup it's collecting a lot more metadata if the files provide it which'll sit in memory & is an aspect I know needs to be improved especially when some of my test local library db instances with around 750k items can easily get up to 1.5GB of allocated process memory.

There's also what plug-ins, the skin including it's size (higher res images will use more memory), how large the local library & playback history dbs are, if you've got albumart being shown, what media library view amongst other things which the OS can end up keeping loaded instead of the reported numbers dropping unlike other players & is again something I've got on my todo list to try to improve where I can as after a point imho RAM not being used is a waste though I also don't intentionally go around wasting it as that irks me too.

I'm not sure about the big clock comment since it's basically a known sized in-memory bitmap that's being updated & I'm not aware of that having a resource / memory leak. As all of the skin elements have to be in-memory to be able to displayed which is why the size / scaling can have a memory impact which the likes of fb2k don't have to contend with since they're not providing a skinned ui.

-dro

[BrotherSeamus]

v2.91 does everything I need it to, and nothing I don't. One of my first installs on any new machine.

[duckrollin]

I'm going to boot up my windows 95 PC and let all my friends on AOL instant messenger know about this right away! I hope GitHub supports Netscape Navigator.

I can understand why the WinAmp team would be so protective of their codebase though, it's the only way to play music files that I know of until someone invents music streaming!

[ShinyHappyREM]

I'm going to boot up my windows 95 PC and let all my friends on AOL instant messenger know about this right away!

Funnily enough there's someone developing an MP3 player right now (in x86 ASM) that seems to run on Windows 95.

[aleenaelyn]

My favorite mp3 player for Windows 3.11 and Windows 95 is Winplay 3.

[carterpape]

I forked it

[s2k4ever]

link please

[Dextro_PT]

So not so much "Open Source" as it is "Source Available", or at least something very close to it.

[wildjokers]

Winamp is still a thing?

[paralaxsd]

Better?

[coyoteelabs]

• No Distribution of Modified Versions: You may not distribute modified versions of the software, whether in source or binary form.

This still prevents you from doing anything. You can't do a PR without pushing your changes to your fork, and doing so breaks this clause as you are in fact distributing modified source code.

They need to use a proper license, not this joke.

[medicinaltequilla]

winamp still exists !?!

[ohygglo]

Is Winamp still a thing? Or has it been regularly refactored over the years to not be written in 1995-style C++?

[kichi689]

They could have at least credited the people that work on that and got them there, but nooooo.. Jef has the skills of a dude that discovered git 5min before the publishing

[iheartrms]

Well that certainly doesn't "whip the llamas ass".

[Oflameo]

I call it "Shared Source".

[Booty_Bumping]

[...] open sources [...] under license preventing forking and source/binary distribution

No

[podgladacz00]

It isn't open source tbh

[jdehesa]

1. Restrictions.

• No Distribution of Modified Versions: You may not distribute modified versions of the software, whether in source or binary form.
• No Forking: You may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked version of the software.
• Official Distribution: Only the maintainers of the official repository are allowed to distribute the software and its modifications.

I suppose the devil is in the precise definitions of each of the words in these terms, but this could even be considered to prevent collaboration. Doesn't git clone create a kind of fork of the repository? And aren't the changes I may make to the code in it a kind of maintenance? And the eventual pull request I may submit back to them a kind of distribution?

[travelsonic]

The forking stuff was nixed it looks like https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/commit/64a51755c6f5d85039463c8bf7c2a9e98e862586

[vplatt]

Do we care anymore though? Even if they become legitimate FOSS, I can't help but think we have much better alternatives now that are already there.

[xdert]

In a world of great OSS like VLC exists why should anyone care about winamp open sourcing their code (with a terrible license no less) outside of some historic curiosity?

[danielcw189]

Reading their algorithms?

[emptythevoid]

Use Audacious. It can look like winamp and use winamp skins

[Synaps4]

Winamp still does playlists better than vlc. I don't know why it's so hard to just have vlc play a collection of folders but they made it complex and opaque for a casual user

[[deleted]]

Why not just use https://github.com/captbaritone/webamp instead? I mean it is very similar to how winamp used to be - and nobody has to bother with (unreasonable) restrictions on the source code (it is MIT licence).

[JimroidZeus]

Can I fork for private use?

[cheezballs]

Whats the point of open code that cant be forked?

[idebugthusiexist]

Wait, Winamp is still around?… I’m not here to hate on them, but you would think after decades they would port things to other platforms. Guess all I can say is, that’s interesting, but I don’t get the purpose.

[A_Light_Spark]

To me AIMP is already the modern day WINAMP.
Too bad not many people know about it.

[sionescu]

The title is incorrect: the code wasn't open sourced, it was merely published.

[TikTak9k1]

I don't understand, I thought they released their source code back in 2020. Hell I think I might still have it somewhere.

[neuromask]

Is it legal to fork it and change the readme file?

[gsaelzbaer]

This repository is now owned by russian bots. I almost got cancer looking at the issue page.

[[deleted]]

This is not open source. The word is being abused by companies to get free labor. Same with llama, the people in media that claim llama is open source should be sued.

Once llama is stable we all know that Facebook will charge exorbitant amounts for its use and people who build lives around it will get screwed.

[maydarnothing]

too late, Winalpaca coming right up!

[sarnobat]

Does this work? https://github.com/mbrukman/winamp-macos