432
submitted 3 months ago by StrawberryPigtails to c/opensource@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Dave@lemmy.nz 72 points 3 months ago

What's the licence? It doesn't sound like "open source" and sounds more like "source available".

[-] warmaster@lemmy.world 39 points 3 months ago

BSA

Bullshit Source Available

[-] Onihikage@beehaw.org 4 points 3 months ago

This line gives me some hope that it will actually be open-source:

Winamp will remain the owner of the software and will decide on the innovations made in the official version.

Would they really bother to specify "official version" if it was only source-available and forks weren't allowed?

[-] Dave@lemmy.nz 4 points 3 months ago

In the official announcement, they have very carefully and deliberately avoided the term "open source".

"Open source" has a very specific meaning, and probably the key part for this is if there are any restrictions on what you do with any derivative software you create.

Can you use the Winamp source code to create a new media player and sell it? If there is say a restriction on if you can use it in a company or on if you can sell it, then it's not "open source" even though you can publish noncommercial software based on it.

this post was submitted on 19 May 2024
432 points (93.7% liked)

Open Source

29787 readers
106 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS