←back to thread

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

(arstechnica.com)
431 points dangle1 | 1 comments | 16 Oct 24 16:34 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Calavar ◴[16 Oct 24 16:54 UTC] No.41861254[source]▶
We've lost a lot with the deletion of this repo. Not the code - that's already out in the ether - but the absurdist comedy of the issues, pull requests, and commit history of trying to piecemeal delete third party non-FOSS software.
replies(6): >>41861434 #>>41861797 #>>41861800 #>>41862842 #>>41863375 #>>41864656 #
TheCraiggers ◴[16 Oct 24 20:15 UTC] No.41863375[source]▶
The other thing we lost is that future companies will think again before making their code public. It's already such an incredibly rare thing in the wild, but now companies and their lawyers will see that Winamp was exposed to potentially lawsuitable behavior that wouldn't have come to light had they never opened the code.
replies(4): >>41863868 #>>41864229 #>>41865023 #>>41865025 #
fluoridation ◴[16 Oct 24 21:07 UTC] No.41863868[source]▶
All of this happened because the company didn't want to open source the code, they wanted to openwash it and get free labor from the open source community. If another company wants to do the same and they decide not to because of this, nothing of value is lost.
replies(1): >>41864088 #
ezekg ◴[16 Oct 24 21:37 UTC] No.41864088[source]▶
> they wanted to openwash it and get free labor from the open source community.

This is such a ridiculous accusation. Why do discussions about source-available models often turn into accusations of soliciting free labor? Why can't authors just provide access to source code, but reserve some or all of the distribution rights? It's their code, after all. Nobody is forcing 'the open source community' to contribute under the terms set forth; anybody who does contribute does so under their own free will, under the terms set forth by the license.

It doesn't always have to be a binary choice between open source and closed source, nor does it justify further accusations of "openwashing."

replies(7): >>41864186 #>>41864195 #>>41864203 #>>41864260 #>>41864587 #>>41865036 #>>41866336 #
ndiddy ◴[16 Oct 24 22:40 UTC] No.41864587[source]▶
Llama Group laid off the team who had been working on Winamp and then released the source code under a license that bans users from distributing modified versions of the code themselves and assigns copyright on any contributions to Llama Group. IMO this absolutely points to them hoping that releasing the source code would let them offload Winamp maintenance onto the community.
replies(1): >>41864768 #
ezekg ◴[16 Oct 24 23:02 UTC] No.41864768{3}[source]▶
That's entirely speculation. They could just as well be winding down the project entirely, which has happened before.
replies(2): >>41864858 #>>41866263 #
1. mise_en_place ◴[17 Oct 24 03:53 UTC] No.41866263{4}[source]▶
If they're winding it down, then they may as well make it fully OSS, and ditch the components that are proprietary that they can't release. Attribution can get complex with old software IP, especially when using such proprietary components.