←back to thread

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

(arstechnica.com)
431 points dangle1 | 8 comments | 16 Oct 24 16:34 UTC | HN request time: 1.034s | source | bottom
Show context
VonGuard ◴[16 Oct 24 17:07 UTC] No.41861368[source]▶
This is a cautionary tale for preservationists. My current preservation project is still not open because we are very slowly reviewing the code to make sure we don't accidentally include any IP when we open the source code. The real things that get you are similar to what happened here: codecs, graphics libraries, and a really big one to look out for is fonts. It'd be great if there was a scanner that could detect this stuff, but unfortunately, the scanning tools out there tend to go the other way like Black Duck: they detect open source code, not closed source.
replies(4): >>41861469 #>>41861524 #>>41861575 #>>41861816 #
sph ◴[16 Oct 24 17:30 UTC] No.41861575[source]▶
Unpopular opinion: preservationism shouldn't care about licensing and legal nonsense.

Because what is the point if something is distributed in a restrictive license, can't be preserved and then gets lost to time? Also, licensing is to avoid distribution, modification or outright copying by competitors; preservation is completely orthogonal to those concerns. It is to avoid losing a piece of craft to the sands of time. There is no reason laws should have power over anything in perpetuity.

As seen in other spaces, pirates ignoring the "law" will provide the greatest service to humanity.

replies(5): >>41861695 #>>41861794 #>>41862313 #>>41862832 #>>41865459 #
toast0 ◴[16 Oct 24 18:41 UTC] No.41862313[source]▶
Just because the whole is more or less abandoned (although I still use winamp, currently running a build from Dec 21, 2022), doesn't mean the licensed parts are.

If the rights holders of the licensed bits haven't abandoned them, then it's not really fair to distribute them without their consent.

replies(1): >>41862458 #
1. VonGuard ◴[16 Oct 24 18:52 UTC] No.41862458[source]▶
This. I cannot believe people are telling me to just open everything. It's nuts. Imagine if someone found your personal code and just decided to open it without your permission or knowledge!
replies(1): >>41862955 #
2. sph ◴[16 Oct 24 19:35 UTC] No.41862955[source]▶
My personal code isn't licensed, so there is nothing that stops you from doing that if you get your hands on my hard drive. What has licensing got to do with it?

Also, we're not talking about personal code either, but something that is arguably a product humanity, or a part thereof, would want to preserve for posterity.

Lastly, no one is telling you to open anything. I am saying that if someone decides something you have created need to be preserved, they should go ahead. You can protest, you can sue, the point is it shouldn't stop anyone from trying. Which doesn't apply to this case, as the owner of Winamp actually wanted to make it open source.

replies(2): >>41863031 #>>41863224 #
3. VonGuard ◴[16 Oct 24 19:41 UTC] No.41863031[source]▶
OK, but again, people are telling me to take code I do not own the rights to, and to release it under an open source license. That's 100% illegal. This is the equivalent of me taking a Stephen King novel and pasting it into a webpage and attaching a Creative Commons license. That does NOT make the Stephen King novel open source. It just gets me in trouble and sued.

And the license matters. We're talking about something owned by a company somewhere, legally. Humanity's concerns don't matter in business and legal affairs. As I stated above, I agree that we should be able to save everything. But this has nothing at all to do with what's good for humanity. This is about money and copyright law.

Also, OK, your personal code is not licensed. Great, now I can take it and license it myself, copyright it myself, and then sue you for hosting it in your github account. Hey, I'd be in the wrong, but if I lawyer up I can just win by spending money and waiting you out. This is the world we live in. It's not good, but it's reality.

replies(2): >>41867612 #>>41902576 #
4. favorited ◴[16 Oct 24 20:02 UTC] No.41863224[source]▶
> My personal code isn't licensed, so there is nothing that stops you from doing that if you get your hands on my hard drive

This is not true. You can't redistribute someone else's IP without a license from the owner.

replies(1): >>41867615 #
5. sph ◴[17 Oct 24 08:42 UTC] No.41867612{3}[source]▶
> OK, but again, people are telling me to take code I do not own the rights to, and to release it under an open source license.

Who is telling you that? Literally no one. In my original comment, the preservationist is NOT the author, as it's the author that is liable to be sued by releasing proprietary material.

In my comment, the preservationist is a third-party that should NOT be concerned with such matters, even if being forbidden by copyright law. Imagine the Internet Archive, which already operate this way, and I applaud, because the service they offer is better than if they had to respect all legal nonsense.

No one is telling you to do anything with YOUR code, and code you are legally liable for. No one is putting a pistol to your head, so I don't get why you are being so defensive to my admittedly unpopular opinion. Do whatever you want.

6. sph ◴[17 Oct 24 08:44 UTC] No.41867615{3}[source]▶
In which country? What if the owner has passed?
replies(1): >>41868072 #
7. anthk ◴[17 Oct 24 10:08 UTC] No.41868072{4}[source]▶
Efen if the owner has passed, you can't still legally copy around The Twilight Zone from the 50's in the US.

In my country it's legal to do so -if there's no profit- on media, but not for propietary software with sharing restrictions.

8. account42 ◴[21 Oct 24 10:19 UTC] No.41902576{3}[source]▶
> Humanity's concerns don't matter in business and legal affairs.

Then it's only fair for humans to not concern themselves with business and legal affairs.