←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: 0s | 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. hoten ◴[16 Oct 24 18:53 UTC] No.41862484{3}[source]▶
Yes, it's true. There's a reason GPL is called copyleft.

> Lest everyone using any flavour of Linux is liable to the same problem?

The kernel is GPL. applications running on it in usermode are not constrained by the license.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#PortProgramToGP...

replies(1): >>41865863 #
2. bscphil ◴[17 Oct 24 02:28 UTC] No.41865863[source]▶
You can have copyleft without virality; the Mozilla Public License 2.0 requires any modifications to a covered work to be released under the same license (copyleft), but does not extend this requirement to other code included in a combined work (virality). As I read the license, you could embed the Gecko browser engine in your proprietary e-reader software, and only your changes to the engine itself would have to be released as free software.