Winamp is going open source
Winamp is going open source
I used this for years, from version 1.9 all the way to 5.x when I moved onto other software.
EDIT: Here is the full press release.
Press Release- Inside information May 16, 2024 – 08:30 CEST Winamp has announced that it is opening up its source code to enable collaborative development of its legendary player for Windows. Winamp has announced that on 24 September 2024, the application's source code will be open to developers worldwide. Winamp will open up its code for the player used on Windows, enabling the entire community to participate in its development. This is an invitation to global collaboration, where developers worldwide can contribute their expertise, ideas, and passion to help this iconic software evolve. Winamp has become much more than just a music player. It embodies a unique digital culture, aesthetic, and user experience. With this initiative to open the source code, Winamp is taking the next step in its history, allowing its users to contribute directly to improving the product. "This is a decision that will delight millions of users around the world. Our focus will be on new mobile players and other platforms. We will be releasing a new mobile player at the beginning of July. Still, we don't want to forget the tens of millions of users who use the software on Windows and will benefit from thousands of developers' experience and creativity. Winamp will remain the owner of the software and will decide on the innovations made in the official version," explains Alexandre Saboundjian, CEO of Winamp. Interested developers can now make themselves known at the following address: about.winamp.com/free-llama
You're viewing part of a thread.
I see, so what is the difference between the two?
I've been thinking of OSS and source available as interchangeable. But now it kind of seems to me that free software is interchangeable with open source software. Is it just a matter of branding?
I’ve been thinking of OSS and source available as interchangeable.
Nope; they are distinct terms. Source-available is just a general way of saying that the source code can be (legally) acquired. It doesn't meet the standards of open-source software (OSS) or Free Software, both of which guarantee certain rights and freedoms, such as permission to make and redistribute changes to the source code.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#fs-definition
It's understandable that it might be confusing, though, since some people use the terms casually without understanding that they have specific meanings, and since both phrases use English words that could be interpreted to mean something else. (For example, "free software" doesn't mean software whose price is zero, and "open-source software" doesn't mean software whose source code is published in the open.)
Edit to add: Like many English words, the context in which they are used affects their meaning. The field of software is such a context.
But now it kind of seems to me that free software is interchangeable with open source software. Is it just a matter of branding?
The two overlap, but are not exactly the same. The umbrella term FOSS evolved to encompass both, because there is so much overlap between them that having such a term is often useful.
since some people use the terms casually without understanding that they have specific meanings, and since both phrases use English words that could be interpreted to mean something else. (For example, “free software” doesn’t mean software whose price is zero, and “open-source software” doesn’t mean software whose source code is published in the open.)
The Free Software Foundation can make whatever definitions they want, but they don't supersede regular English. That's not a problem with "some people" being casual, it's a problem with a small entity trying to claim a common term. The confusion is entirely their fault.
What does a free country mean? One having no value of money? Its english's fault that two different words can have exact same spelling and pronounciation. Most other languages have distinct terms for the two "free"s
Ambiguous words with context-dependent meanings don't make trying to define only one meaning as correct a useful and reasonable task to attempt for a small foundation. There are also notably synonyms for "free" that don't have that issue.
FSF DO NOT try to define free as in freedom as only meaning of free. But in context of software, free software means Libre. That is the point. And of course in english free takes context dependent meaning,and software can be either type of free. So it should be rigorously defined.
Anyway I can't find synonyms for theese two free in english, what are they?
But in context of software, free software means Libre.
It doesn't though. It's an awkward attempt to define what words mean by a niche group that even those who value its goals don't commonly adhere to. I've been writing software for two decades now. If a colleague comes up to me and asks "is that software free?" they're probably talking about cost. You can't define away common usage. Pick a word that means what you want it to mean or make up a new term.
We all know what FOSS means, because it's a unique term (yes, despite F being Free). We also all generally understand what "open source" means, even if there's some confusion with "source available". But "free". That's a total failure and people trying to pretend FSF has any power to define the word in relation to software are just delusional.
Anyway I can’t find synonyms for theese two free in english, what are they?
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/free
"Unrestricted" or "permissive" both look good to me. Or as above, just use a term unique to software like "open source" and then you can define it to exactly the meaning you want.
Unrestricted or permissive does not look good to me. Free software can have restrictive licensing, like GPL. It has restriction which makes free software always free. You really know there are so called "permissive" licenses which do not have this. The word free shows the importance of freedom in sodtware which other terms fails to address
If you're going to complain that the GPL isn't unrestricted (true), then it's just as much a complaint about it not being "free" (as in freedom). Just use "open source". It's its own thing that people understand and is free from definitional conflicts that it will assuredly lose.
That there are these dumb mnemonics for "free as in..." just demonstrates how muddled the supposedly defined term is. If you need to continually explain what you mean by "free", then it's a failure as a descriptor.
Hhuh? Open source is not free. Its entirely different ideology. You can't call it open source. Also open source have this same issue that people perveive it as software with "source availiable". Is that dumb mnemonics? I think not!
People cannot understand a "new" ideology from the name itself. Hence they have to define it and popularise it. Free takes meaning in context and they have to make context in terms of software as free as in freedom.
"Free" vs. "open source" is a distinction without a practical difference. It's not about what it is or what it does, it's about vibes.
There's no future step of "popularizing it". They've been trying for 40 years and it's been an abject failure. Another decade isn't going to finally get it to stick, it's just a dumb idea. It's is a very up-their-own-asses grognard thing to just reject reality and keep demanding it happen. "Could it be that I am wrong? No, it must be everyone else who haven't just done what I wanted them to do because I told them to."
And yeah, "open source" and "source available" have some confusion, but that's at least a battle that can be won, and in most cases if you call a source available software package (an actual package with license terms, not just every github project) "open source", you'll usually be right (source available and not open source is already a minority). Pointing to that like it justifies instead continuing the crusade for "free" isn't even remotely comparing issues of similar difficulty.
Trying to jump in whenever someone calls costless software "free" with a "free as in beer"/"free as in speech" explanation or "no, that's costless software, not free software" just makes FOSS look like an arcane and exclusionary movement for unpleasant nerds, like Richard Stallman.
The Free Software Foundation can make whatever definitions they want, but they don’t supersede regular English.
The Free Software Foundation isn't a broad industry body defining standard terms for general software development, and even if they were, a term of use doesn't supersede regular English. People using "free software" to mean "without cost software" aren't in any way wrong, unless maybe they're actual members of the FSF.