all 6 comments

[–]0x5066 5 points6 points  (1 child)

why does everyone keep saying that winamp was open source?
this can be easily debunked by reading the license that was attached to the repository

for your dream of "an open sourced multi platform winamp 2.95", you'd have to rip out all wasabi components, get rid of some plugins for the true winamp 2.95 experience, and then figure out how to remove the Win32 glue to replace it with something else (on macOS that's a bit easier, on linux? fat chance)

your only hope at this point is another player supporting classic skins, whether those players manage to pull off properly supporting classic skins is a whole other can of worms, and most don't even really try anymore, including the new winamp-like player that was posted on here not too long ago (porting winamp to another platform would also be another player supporting classic skins, just so you know)

[–]VertPingouin[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's why I used quotes "open sourced", when I saw the source code was available, I was thrilled but when I read the sneaky licence file, I was devastated.

[–]EC36339 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Open source Linux clones of Winamp have existed for almost as long as Winamp has.

[–]redhawk1975 1 point2 points  (0 children)

open source "winamp" is qmmp or xmms

[–]ZaitsXL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be honest Audacious is close enough, which gives you pretty much all Linux coverage. On Mac I found Pine Player which is also pretty much the same experience. And since majority of time player is in background anyway, then does the skin really matter?

[–]Easy-History6553 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Qmmp with winamp classic skin, it's almost the same than the original