this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
235 points (99.6% liked)

Open Source

30764 readers
1038 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/45026885

top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 hours ago

Too late the code is out there ... Forever

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

ohhh nooooo, who could possibly have seen this coming

not like that repo was getting constantly vandalized as people realized it contained copyrighted code that the winamp owners didn't have the rights to which the project managers were halfheartedly playing whack-a-mole with

[–] [email protected] 75 points 1 day ago
[–] [email protected] 92 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I know, right... Damn foss enthusiasts, you show 'em sources in order to get some cheap publicity, and those bastards immediately start raising a stink over you slightly attempting to fuck them over with licensing

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago

Llamas ass, only slightly ~~fucked over~~ whipped.

[–] [email protected] 78 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean they don't understand SW, Licenses and Git. It's all out there now...

[–] [email protected] 66 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Hey at least we got some commercial secrets and licenses. It's always nice to get those.

[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Stashing it on the shelf next to my copy of the Windows 2000 source code...

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

Is art.
Not that pretty.

[–] [email protected] 50 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Did they comment on why it was deleted? I didn't see anything in the article. I recall the consensus was that they made so many mistakes the only way to fix it was deletion of the repo.

I also saw in one of the comments of the Arstechnica article that the one who pushed for open-source wanted to clean up the code before publishing. Management said no, the entire team got fired/left, and suddenly the code got published with all that commercial stuff left in. Sounds about right.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Based on the article, this is a train wreck of cosmic proportions. My guess is, the CEO panicked and went into damage mitigation mode.

Sounds like they’re trying to put out a titanium fire using only a bucket of water. What could go wrong.

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

Sounds like they’re trying to put out a titanium fire using only a bucket of water.

I have a new phrase to use in the future.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day 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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'm completely out of the loop. What happened?

[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour 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

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day 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.

[–] the_crotch 20 points 1 day ago

Is this what whipping the llamas ass looks like?