I don't really understand why people complained.
The source is open, if don't want to contribute, don't. Just because something doesn't fit a specific definition it doesn't mean it's not worth of existence.
replies(3):
> "Winamp Collaborative License (WCL) Version 1.0.1," you may not "distribute modified versions of the software" in source or binary, and "only the maintainers of the official repository are allowed to distribute the software and its modifications." Anyone may contribute, in other words, but only to Winamp's benefit.
They were basically grifters. It wasn't just a dump for preservation sake (which would be fine as a historical artifact), they wanted to benefit. Parasitic. What was the community benefitting? They could volunteer for free to benefit a for-profit company when there are already open-source clones that do the same thing? (XMMS and it's various descendents for starters).
You got to look at the code. Because it was open.
It's the most literal definition of "open source". You're complaining because you can't also do whatever you want with it. So now we're back to the code being closed again. Better now?