this post was submitted on 16 May 2024

376 points (100.0% liked)

Free and Open Source Software

18446 readers

75 users here now

If it's free and open source and it's also software, it can be discussed here. Subcommunity of Technology.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

376

Winamp is going open source (feddit.uk)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

96 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I used this for years, from version 1.9 all the way to 5.x when I moved onto other software.

EDIT: Here is the full press release.

Press Release- Inside information May 16, 2024 – 08:30 CEST Winamp has announced that it is opening up its source code to enable collaborative development of its legendary player for Windows. Winamp has announced that on 24 September 2024, the application's source code will be open to developers worldwide. Winamp will open up its code for the player used on Windows, enabling the entire community to participate in its development. This is an invitation to global collaboration, where developers worldwide can contribute their expertise, ideas, and passion to help this iconic software evolve. Winamp has become much more than just a music player. It embodies a unique digital culture, aesthetic, and user experience. With this initiative to open the source code, Winamp is taking the next step in its history, allowing its users to contribute directly to improving the product. "This is a decision that will delight millions of users around the world. Our focus will be on new mobile players and other platforms. We will be releasing a new mobile player at the beginning of July. Still, we don't want to forget the tens of millions of users who use the software on Windows and will benefit from thousands of developers' experience and creativity. Winamp will remain the owner of the software and will decide on the innovations made in the official version," explains Alexandre Saboundjian, CEO of Winamp. Interested developers can now make themselves known at the following address: about.winamp.com/free-llama

(page 2) 49 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Not a programmer but does that mean we will finally see Winamp come to Linux?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (6 children)

Linuxamp

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 30 points 10 months ago

I stopped paying any attention to them when they started talking about NFTs. This is cool news.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

That screenshot alone brings back so, so many memories.

Been with Winamp ever since my first 486DX all the way up to my first 4k screen when it became unusable due to size/scaling issues.

I'm really keeping my fingers crossed for this one to succeed.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

I switched to Strawberry from a lifetime of Winamp usage purely because I wanted an open source music player, so this is amazing news!

[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago

Very excited by this. Hopefully they go all the way and GPL it. There hasn't been any mp3 player I've enjoyed using as much as Winamp.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

Assuming there's no weird catch, this is amazing. I love winamp

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I still use Winamp 5.5 or something, before it became bloated. Still kicks the same ass. Llama’s

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

I stopped on 5.666 just because

[–] [email protected] 22 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Not sure if you're able to edit the title, but this doesn't look like FOSS, just open source.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 10 months ago (3 children)

doesn’t look like FOSS, just open source.

Open-source software is FOSS by definition. Did you mean source-available?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

god i hate words

[–] [email protected] 22 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If you ask the FSF, open source is a bigger set than free software, mostly to do with restrictions on the uses of the code

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html.en

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

And FOSS is an umbrella term encompassing both Free software and Open-Source software.

I'm glad to see people taking interest in the meanings behind these terms. We all benefit from understanding them better.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Doesn't FOSS refer to software this is both free and open source? Not a union of free software and open source software? My understanding is that if a piece of software is not both open and free then it is not FOSS.

EDIT:

From the wiki page:

Free and open-source software (FOSS) is software that is available under a license that grants the right to use, modify, and distribute the software, modified or not, to everyone free of charge. The public availability of the source code is, therefore, a necessary but not sufficient condition. FOSS is an inclusive umbrella term for free software and open-source software.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Doesn’t FOSS refer to software this is both free and open source?

Not exclusively, no. It's an umbrella term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSS

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

You maybe replied before seeing my edit, but I actually quoted that article in the edit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

Indeed. I clicked reply before your edit. Here is the key part of the quote you selected:

FOSS is an inclusive umbrella term for free software and open-source software.

That means Free software qualifies and FOSS, and Open-Source software qualifies as FOSS. It's a broader category, not a narrower one.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I see, so what is the difference between the two?

I've been thinking of OSS and source available as interchangeable. But now it kind of seems to me that free software is interchangeable with open source software. Is it just a matter of branding?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (14 children)

I’ve been thinking of OSS and source available as interchangeable.

Nope; they are distinct terms. Source-available is just a general way of saying that the source code can be (legally) acquired. It doesn't meet the standards of open-source software (OSS) or Free Software, both of which guarantee certain rights and freedoms, such as permission to make and redistribute changes to the source code.

https://opensource.org/osd

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#fs-definition

It's understandable that it might be confusing, though, since some people use the terms casually without understanding that they have specific meanings, and since both phrases use English words that could be interpreted to mean something else. (For example, "free software" doesn't mean software whose price is zero, and "open-source software" doesn't mean software whose source code is published in the open.)

Edit to add: Like many English words, the context in which they are used affects their meaning. The field of software is such a context.

But now it kind of seems to me that free software is interchangeable with open source software. Is it just a matter of branding?

The two overlap, but are not exactly the same. The umbrella term FOSS evolved to encompass both, because there is so much overlap between them that having such a term is often useful.

load more comments (14 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Corrected. 👍

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There is nothing here saying it will be FOSS or open-source, just source-available.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"This invites developers worldwide to contribute"

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You can contribute to things that don't have open source licenses, it's just probably a dumb idea.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

We'll just have to wait and see what they mean I suppose

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

sure, and while we wait, claiming that they are releasing it as open-source is speculation, so lets not do that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

*FOSS

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

nope, open-source. claiming that they are releasing under an open-source license is speculation. The only thing we can claim is source-available.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Cool. Maybe someone will finally add a mix/random option to the playlist.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I’d love to see it ported to Linux and for Spotify to release a fork of it again.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

With many people going from windows to Linux, they would have instantaneous users on nostalgia alone

[–] [email protected] 82 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The release doesn't say it's going FOSS. It doesn't specify, but it hints that it'll be "Source Available". Stuff like:

Winamp will remain the owner of the software and will decide on the innovations made in the official version.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Could mean FOSS but they keep the trademark.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Sure, but that's unlikely, given the wording. "Owner of the software" is fairly clear and trademark and software are very different.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The open-source licenses that I've used don't require surrendering copyright.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago (6 children)

The open-source licenses that I’ve used don’t require surrendering copyright.

The creator doesn't "surrender" their copyright, but someone can fork it and then have ownership of their version. "Winamp will remain the owner of the software" indicates you won't have ownership of a fork.

Again, it doesn't clearly state whether it will be "FOSS" or "Source Available", but if they were planning to go FOSS, you'd expect them to say something to make that clear. Leaving it vague seems like a strategy to get attention while not actually lying.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I was replying to this exchange:

Could mean FOSS but they keep the trademark.

Sure, but that’s unlikely, given the wording. “Owner of the software” is fairly clear

The article's text said, "Winamp will remain the owner of the software". That does not, in fact, preclude giving it a FOSS license, nor does retaining a related trademark. GP was correct. They can make it FOSS and keep the trademark and copyright. I don't see any reason to think it unlikely.

The creator doesn’t “surrender” their copyright, but someone can fork it and then have ownership of their version

Forking someone's copyrighted work does not change ownership of the rights in any jurisdiction that I know of. If you meant "ownership" in a difference sense, like maybe control over a derivative project's direction, then I think choosing a different word would have made your meaning more clear.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

The article’s text said, “Winamp will remain the owner of the software.” That does not, in fact, preclude giving it a FOSS license, nor does retaining a related trademark. GP was correct. They can make it FOSS and keep the trademark and copyright. I don’t see any reason to think it unlikely.

It's possible. However, at no point in the post is that discussed, so it's pretty wild speculation.

Forking someone’s copyrighted work does not change ownership of the rights in any jurisdiction that I know of. If you meant “ownership” in a difference sense, like maybe control over a derivative project’s direction, then I think choosing a different word would have made your meaning more clear.

AFAIK, it doesn't "change" ownership, but it creates a new property with new ownership. That new ownership may be bound by he terms of the original license, but the original owner has no further control.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

I’ve played open source games that assign ownership of the code to one person, but they operate like an open source project and anyone can use the source however they wish. It depends on how that owner chooses to license the code.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Yep, the press release says opening the source code. It also says they're inviting developers to contribute.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

When they say "inviting the developers to contribute", it sounds to me that they are looking for developers to work on Winamp without having to pay them. The article is filled with strange wordings.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It also doesn't include any wording that would indicate it's FOSS. It doesn't say anything about being able to fork, instead using phrases like, "participate in its development", "allowing its users to contribute directly to improving the product", and "will benefit from thousands of developers' experience and creativity".

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

Sounds like they are saying that Winamp wants developers they dont need to pay :D

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 27 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Winamp still whips the Llamas ass.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

Came here just to say something similar.

"Going FOSS really whips the llamas ass!"

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I remember I used to use Winamp then Sonique then Foobar 2000 and that's when I switched to Linux.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And now there's a foobar2000 on Linux

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Unless it can support the plugins already there (which I doubt... mono doesn't mean we can straight up run DLLs, right?), I'd have to hope it stumbles into an incredible ecosystem. Thanks for the find, I'll be looking out for it. We finally might have one people'd be content using. Now I'm wondering if/when I finally get enough motivation to start making a coverflow or a lyrics-scroll plugin, should I develop for Amarok or Fooyin?

We also used to have Guarapirangua and DeaDBeeF. G ran out of steam, and D decided to fuck over Russian-language users cuz "they country war so they people bad!", angering many plugin developers besides making me morally uncontent with what future decisions they'd make.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

Sounds familiar.

load more comments