←back to thread

Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks

(arstechnica.com)
431 points dangle1 | 2 comments | 16 Oct 24 16:34 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
fsflover ◴[16 Oct 24 17:19 UTC] No.41861478[source]▶
Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41662105

Winamp contained modified GPL code, violating the GPL (github.com/winampdesktop)

18 points by mepian 19 days ago | 6 comments

replies(2): >>41861657 #>>41861961 #
bscphil ◴[16 Oct 24 18:11 UTC] No.41861961[source]▶
I can't see the original issue, but it's interesting that the title chooses to highlight the fact that the GPL code was modified. Actually, under the GPL, this fact is immaterial. If the Winamp player contained any GPL code at all, modified or not, then it is a derivative work of that GPL code and anyone receiving a copy of Winamp is entitled to demand the full corresponding source be provided under a GPL license.
replies(4): >>41862254 #>>41862325 #>>41863354 #>>41864002 #
Jenk ◴[16 Oct 24 18:42 UTC] No.41862325[source]▶
> Actually, under the GPL, this fact is immaterial. If the Winamp player contained any GPL code at all, modified or not, then it is a derivative work of that GPL code and anyone receiving a copy of Winamp is entitled to demand the full corresponding source be provided under a GPL license.

That's just not true, surely? Lest everyone using any flavour of Linux is liable to the same problem?

How many apps out there are using GPL code? Android, for example.

Making a derivative in the sense of adding functionality to it, I get, but using it as-is as a component or library surely doesn't - and cannot - fall foul of the license else the entire technosphere is liable.

replies(9): >>41862380 #>>41862399 #>>41862408 #>>41862484 #>>41862492 #>>41862803 #>>41862892 #>>41863996 #>>41865358 #
1. jart ◴[16 Oct 24 18:48 UTC] No.41862399[source]▶
It is if you link it into your address space. If your code wants to be non-GPL then it needs to have some kind of barrier between it and the GPL code that it uses. For Linux, that would be the kernel syscall abi. But normally it's the process boundary. For example, if your program spawns the GNU gperf command, then its GPL license doesn't apply to your program. Furthermore, the generated code that the gperf command prints to stdout, is not encumbered by the GPL. In other words, the output of a GPL licensed program belongs to you. But if you were to copy gperf's .c files into your codebase and use their perfect hash table algorithm, then your software would become GPL encumbered, but only if you distribute. They will sue you and spare no quarter if you don't give your users the same freedoms that they gave you. Even if the gperf dev team doesn't do it, then some other org representing someone who contributed a bug fix once will. You can't hide and there is no time to survive, because GitHub can be easily monitored using tools like BigQuery.
replies(1): >>41866757 #
2. pxc ◴[17 Oct 24 05:45 UTC] No.41866757[source]▶
> spare no quarter if you don't give your users the same freedoms that they gave you.

What? The actual history of GPL enforcement is restrained when it comes to remediation. Are you aware of some routinely punitive GPL enforcer that I am not? Or is this FUD or a joke?

I hope I've not missed some news about your own projects and that you've not been subject to anxiety or meanness on account of the GPL, either. :(