Opening up the WinAmp source to all goes badly as owners delete entire repo
The owners of WinAmp have just deleted their entire repo one month after uploading the source code to GitHub. Lots of source code, and quite
possibly, not all of it theirs.
The deletion happened soon after The Register enquired about the seeming inclusion of Shoutcast DNAS code and some Microsoft and Intel codecs.
https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/16/opensourcing_of_winamp_goes_badly/
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 15:55:49 -0000 (UTC), Frankie wrote:
Opening up the WinAmp source to all goes badly as owners delete entire repo
The owners of WinAmp have just deleted their entire repo one month after uploading the source code to GitHub. Lots of source code, and quite possibly, not all of it theirs.
The deletion happened soon after The Register enquired about the seeming inclusion of Shoutcast DNAS code and some Microsoft and Intel codecs.
https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/16/opensourcing_of_winamp_goes_badly/
What's worst is that, they tried to twist open source: No forking.
It's not just upsetting third party companies, but it's upsetting the entire open source community - which roughly, is the world.
Well, fork you!
Good thing it's already been forked by many people.
Opening up the WinAmp source to all goes badly as owners delete entire repo
The owners of WinAmp have just deleted their entire repo one month after >uploading the source code to GitHub. Lots of source code, and quite
possibly, not all of it theirs.
The deletion happened soon after The Register enquired about the seeming >inclusion of Shoutcast DNAS code and some Microsoft and Intel codecs.
https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/16/opensourcing_of_winamp_goes_badly/
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sat, 19 Oct 2024 15:55:49 -0000 (UTC),
Frankie <frankie@nospam.usa> wrote:
Opening up the WinAmp source to all goes badly as owners delete entire repo >>
The owners of WinAmp have just deleted their entire repo one month after >>uploading the source code to GitHub. Lots of source code, and quite >>possibly, not all of it theirs.
The deletion happened soon after The Register enquired about the seeming >>inclusion of Shoutcast DNAS code and some Microsoft and Intel codecs.
https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/16/opensourcing_of_winamp_goes_badly/
I have winamp but haven't been using it. Is it likely my version, years
old, will continue to work as it did? Only asking about "likely",
don't expect a promise.
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:19:37 -0400, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sat, 19 Oct 2024 15:55:49 -0000 (UTC), >>Frankie <frankie@nospam.usa> wrote:
Opening up the WinAmp source to all goes badly as owners delete entire repo >>>
The owners of WinAmp have just deleted their entire repo one month after >>>uploading the source code to GitHub. Lots of source code, and quite >>>possibly, not all of it theirs.
The deletion happened soon after The Register enquired about the seeming >>>inclusion of Shoutcast DNAS code and some Microsoft and Intel codecs.
https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/16/opensourcing_of_winamp_goes_badly/
I have winamp but haven't been using it. Is it likely my version, years >>old, will continue to work as it did? Only asking about "likely",
don't expect a promise.
my version 5.666 still works fine on windows 11.
YMMV
Me
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 21 Oct 2024 15:06:15 -0600, james
moffat <spam.spam@distributel.net> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:19:37 -0400, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sat, 19 Oct 2024 15:55:49 -0000 (UTC),
Frankie <frankie@nospam.usa> wrote:
Opening up the WinAmp source to all goes badly as owners delete entire repoI have winamp but haven't been using it. Is it likely my version, years >>> old, will continue to work as it did? Only asking about "likely",
The owners of WinAmp have just deleted their entire repo one month after >>>> uploading the source code to GitHub. Lots of source code, and quite
possibly, not all of it theirs.
The deletion happened soon after The Register enquired about the seeming >>>> inclusion of Shoutcast DNAS code and some Microsoft and Intel codecs.
https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/16/opensourcing_of_winamp_goes_badly/ >>>
don't expect a promise.
my version 5.666 still works fine on windows 11.
YMMV
Me
Great. Thanks.
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:19:37 -0400, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sat, 19 Oct 2024 15:55:49 -0000 (UTC), >Frankie <frankie@nospam.usa> wrote:
Opening up the WinAmp source to all goes badly as owners delete entire repo >>
The owners of WinAmp have just deleted their entire repo one month after >>uploading the source code to GitHub. Lots of source code, and quite >>possibly, not all of it theirs.
The deletion happened soon after The Register enquired about the seeming >>inclusion of Shoutcast DNAS code and some Microsoft and Intel codecs.
https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/16/opensourcing_of_winamp_goes_badly/
I have winamp but haven't been using it. Is it likely my version, years >old, will continue to work as it did? Only asking about "likely",
don't expect a promise.
my version 5.666 still works fine on windows 11.
YMMV
Me
WACUP is better: https://getwacup.com
--
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 01:50:23 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
WACUP is better: https://getwacup.com
--
In what Way?
Me
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 01:50:23 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
WACUP is better: https://getwacup.com
--
In what Way?
james moffat <spam.spam@distributel.net> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 01:50:23 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
WACUP is better: https://getwacup.com
--
In what Way?
Me
"... include bug fixes, updates of existing features & most importantly new features..."
james moffat <spam.spam@distributel.net> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 01:50:23 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
WACUP is better: https://getwacup.com
--
In what Way?
Updated plugins, etc.
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 22:48:47 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
james moffat <spam.spam@distributel.net> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 01:50:23 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
WACUP is better: https://getwacup.com
--
In what Way?
Updated plugins, etc.
As I am running the 64bit version, and it doesn't run the plugins at
all I am not sure that would qualify as "better"
ME
james moffat <spam.spam@distributel.net> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 22:48:47 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
james moffat <spam.spam@distributel.net> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 01:50:23 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
WACUP is better: https://getwacup.com
--
In what Way?
Updated plugins, etc.
As I am running the 64bit version, and it doesn't run the plugins at
all I am not sure that would qualify as "better"
ME
Don't use the 64-bit version and read carefully in https://getwacup.com/preview_x64/ web page.
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 07:49:26 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
james moffat <spam.spam@distributel.net> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 22:48:47 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
james moffat <spam.spam@distributel.net> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 01:50:23 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
WACUP is better: https://getwacup.com
--
In what Way?
Updated plugins, etc.
As I am running the 64bit version, and it doesn't run the plugins at
all I am not sure that would qualify as "better"
ME
Don't use the 64-bit version and read carefully in https://getwacup.com/preview_x64/ web page.
Again.... I am not seeing what would qualify as "Better" , Wacup seems
to do what winamp does..... and nothing I have seen with it makes it
'Better'
Me
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 361 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 123:32:40 |
Calls: | 7,716 |
Files: | 12,861 |
Messages: | 5,727,956 |