Releasing WinAmp source goes badly – for its owners, anyway
www.theregister.com
As badly as the later development of the player itself, really
  • gomp@lemmy.ml
    35·
    20 days ago

    I must say, this whole shitshow has been pretty funny to watch :)

    • taanegl@beehaw.org
      21·
      19 days ago

      This, and the WordPress mess, are two contenders for this years “wtf are u even doing” award.

    • a1studmuffin@aussie.zoneEnglish
      13·
      20 days ago

      Sometimes the real value of a project isn’t its proposed worth, but the schadenfreude it offers instead. I’ve backed a few failed Kickstarters that I absolutely got my money’s worth on.

      • Supermariofan67@programming.dev
        50·
        19 days ago

        Winamp published their code as “open source”. Problem is…

        1. It wasn’t open source, it was proprietary but you can see the source code.
        2. Their custom license didn’t even allow forks, which is against GitHub TOS
        3. The codebase apparently contains proprietary code from third parties that they don’t have the right to relicense.
        4. The codebase apparently contains GPL code from third parties that they probably didn’t have the right to make proprietary in the first place
        • theshatterstone54@feddit.uk
          3·
          18 days ago

          Wait, there’s GPL code there as well???

          I’d heard of all the others but this ome kinda snuck under the radar with all the larger issues at play here

          • Supermariofan67@programming.dev
            3·
            18 days ago

            The article on theregister stated

            Also inside the uploaded source code was some GPL 2 source code, which renders the not-very-open WCL moot.

      • TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip
        10·
        19 days ago

        Winamp source code was published on github, but the license said you can’t fork or share the code. Such a license isn’t compatible with github, which is all about forking and sharing.