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):
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.
It's one thing to provide a source available codebase. That's a choice, and it's fine for various definitions of fine. What they did was legally put themselves in hot water with the inclusion of proprietary dependencies, misrepresent what their intentions were, and likely irrevocably damage their reputation to a small, but vocal minority, who likely have a sizeable overlap with folks that know what Winamp is/was.
It's okay if none of that matters to you, or if it doesn't resonate with you, but the things that were done were comically awful in terms of sharing a codebase.
Of course they didn't know what they were doing. It was written by a 19-year-old in the mid 90s. The code is messy with poor licensing and some build tools were included in the repository and they wrote a dumb license for it? Who cares, they shipped a product that 10s of millions of people used and loved and wanted to share that code up to the world and instead of embracing the best of what they were trying to do while helping them to make things better, the community piled on them until they said it was so not worth it that just pulled the whole thing.
Bravo and job well done.
That's a disingenuous argument. It doesn't meet the OSI's definition of open.
> the community piled on them until they said it was so not worth it that just pulled the whole thing.
Yes, but let's be honest: If it wasn't the community, it would have been DMCA takedown requests from the companies whose software was published in the repo. At best, the community hastened the end of the repo by a few weeks.
Anyone can read about this here: https://opensource.org/history
But it's well-documented elsewhere, too.
The term 'open-source' is political, as much as it aimed to 'depoliticize' free software. Its definition is and always has been normative rather than merely descriptive. The term and concept exist to serve a movement, and anyone who is invested in that movement's goals is likely to be invested in promoting a historically informed understanding of both.
As for why you, specifically should care about the concept, I think I don't have the patience to make the case right now. But if you're genuinely interested in that question, I'd be happy to provide links to resources if you let me know what sorts of media you enjoy/have energy for.