More funny part is, they don't appear to be using git at all. Judging by the commits, they use GitHub's web interface to do everything. I bet the whole repo was uploaded by drag-and-dropping a directory to a browser. Which means the guy resposible for that has literally 0 knowledge about git and never actually used it.
Winamp3 predates Git by several years, and GitHub by several more. I wouldn’t be surprised if Justin and Nullsoft weren’t even using SVN back then haha Unless they made the extensive effort to turn ancient repo history into Git commits, you would expect a giant, monolithic commit with a few tweak commits here and there.
since there's TortoiseSVN in the "build tools", they've very likely used SVN internally, and someone just checked out the latest version and dropped it into Github..
I mean, you literally cannot delete something from GitHub if there are forks. Even if you rewrite the history, the deleted commits and code is still on GitHub's server and accessible if you have the URL. This is not a fault of GitHub, it's just a consequence of how their architecture is designed. There are dozens of videos on this topic already.
Can you even hard-delete commits? The only thing you can do is overwrite, but it will break the commit tree for everyone else, right? It also doesn't fix the forks, that still have your Dolby files, as syncing needs the forker to do so.
Fun fact: they did indeed rebase + force push twice two days ago, so you won't find some confidential code anymore. ... well unless you know how github works, so you go to the activity tab where each forced push is logged, along with the git commit hashes, and then you just start browsing the repo before the force push. The only way they can permanently remove the leaked shit from their repo is to delete the whole repo, along with the fork network. They're actually so incompetent with git, that they once rebased the tree, pushed that to another branch, made it a PR, and then merged it back into the pre-rebase tree.
Also, this video is released too fast... now people found out that it even violates GPLv2 because it uses GPLv2-licensed libraries :D So that makes whole Winamp being licensed on GPLv2.
It was probably a joke, but in case it was not or any random reader has no understanding, here is why that is not: To be a valid GPLv2 licensed program, all code must be licensed under a GPLv2 compatible license AND the GPLv2 license text must be available. Both cases are not met. Therefore the program is not really licensed on GPLv2.
I saw it, that one was great. There was a nice argument about how it wasn't compatible with the license but the pull fixed that by changing the license of the project ;)
I genuinely feel like 8 out of 10 closed source project repos are mess close to this. Many commercial programmers do not care about portability or consistent environment to run/compile their projects.
Yeah, my day job is closed source. Even if we gave most people our code, they couldn't do anything interesting with it. I don't need portability, I know exactly where and how my code will run.
Open source isn't much better. I can't tell you how many open source libraries have the worst code ever and literally no build instructions. It's pure guesswork to figure out what libraries and versions they need to be built.
It's so much worse right now. The repo is being spammed with garbage issues. I wouldn't be surprised if they take the repo down entirely within the next day or 2
@@_MasterLink_it shows ones from the previous day, I'm talking about the current Russian spam that's been happening for the past like 2 or 3 hours. That's why I said "it's so much worse RIGHT NOW". The winamp repo in the video has 14 open issues, the repo right now has over 400.
@@HiImKyle you didn't specify that at all in your comment. Whatsoever, so that's more of a communication breakdown on your part. Shoulda coulda woulda.
@@BrodieRobertson The definitions are pretty identical to GPLv3 except for some(like "propagate") yet the ones not defined are used in the definition of others, it's the kinda stuff you would catch as a human but a LLM would overlook so I still think it's pretty likely to be machine written
@@S0ft_b4b3 From the moment I understood the weakness of my code, it disgusted me. I crave the strength and certainty of HolyC. I aspire to the purity of TempleOS.
@@raypol1 Well, my comment got deleted. Here goes again: From the moment I understood the weakness of my code... it disgusted me. I crave the strength and certainty of HolyC. I aspire to the purity of TempleOS.
If their experience of Source Control is TortoiseSVN , no wonder they can't git properly. Inclusion of licensed code that can't be distributed is why a lot of proprietary software will never be open sourced (it is why the original Dos version of Doom was not open sourced but the Linux version was, The Dos version had a licensed sound engine that was removed in the Linux port)
I think there are no developers involved here, maybe jsut a marketing team. THe original developer seem to have used SVN. No git back then so is SVN or CVS (maybe both). This guys just unzipped a backup copy and send it to github, not sure if they even used git for that
@@framegrace1 The residual presence of SVN files in a project migrated from SVN to GIT does not prove there were no devs involved. Just that they didn't bother cleaning up dead files from the repo after migration. I have myself transferred several projects in my company from CVS or TFS to our private GIT repo and I chose to keep the cvsignore and/or tfignore files. Because those files serve as a rapid indication to future devs who don't have the full knowledge that at some point in the history of the project there has been a repo migration and there is always a possibility that some bugs they discover might be related to the migration process. What is really problematic is the leakage of data owned by other companies, certificates, and a legally binding statement that explicitly violates the TOS of the platform on which it's published, and after correction still contradicts in v1.0.1 its own name. A "collaborative licence" that says nobody is allowed to collaborate on the project. This is proof that their entire team has zero clue about laws, contracts and licences.
Yep basically they should have take better look at the code and filter out all that is under proprietary licenses that wont allow distribution. But ya basically when it's in the internet. It stay in the internet. No way to take anything back.
@@alastor--radiodemon7556Yeah once upon a time, in a magical land, it used to be that Windows came fairly unbloated and you actually just had to install the software you wanted. God do I wish we could return to those times, instead nowadays it's all capitalism and LLM/generative AI bullshit until tech and the internet will be completely unusable.
@@Yuzuki1337 i know windows 7 isn't a good example since even that was bloated ESPECIALLY later on in its life with updates but dayum windows 7 was the goat
My guess is that a single guy/small team got the rights to the project by chance, Had ambitious plans and are now in way over their head. If so, there's the possibility that they get bullied out by the community, slap a real OSS license on it and abandon the whole thing
@@realGBx64It is also possible that some of the things contained therein have never had a license or no longer have a license. It takes days or weeks of work to clear a project and make it usable by everyone, and that work must be paid for. For a failed project.
@@realGBx64 They could just release the project under some FOSS license, remove every line of code that infringes copyright, and allow community to make it work without them. I don't see a problem.
@@MarcinKralkaPrepping a code base like that, especially a large one, takes even big companies a good few months. You'd think that's what they were doing between the announcement and now, but nope.
0:18 -the original creator of flappy bird did not let go of the trademark. He was bullied in court until it was forcibly removed from him.- I was wrong, he did indeed abandon the trademark.
@@BrodieRobertson One sentence to be more correct, or one sentence to be less. It's not like youtube will whack you for an arbitrary word limit, and you could have people asking about the "flappy bird" story, instead of complaining that the Ytuber mentioned an interesting thing badly (And yes, mentioning it at all as an analogy/reference, without mentioning the biggest difference feels badly, especially if it's the ONLY other example you mention, instead of being nestled somewhere) :P Tripping out the door wouldn't matter that much if it wasn't such a good video otherwise
Geez that's a lot of BS for a 20+ year old music player. They are holding this ancient relic like it's the llama's catnip. Either release it proper or don't at all. Who cares. There's xmpp anyway.
It doesn't matter if better alternatives exist nowadays, that's not the point. It's just cool to see how your favorite player of the 90s/00s was written, and some people get a nice feeling by fixing or compiling it themselves. I fully agree about people probably not using it anymore (Spotify exists nowadays), but I do understand some may have warm feelings about something they used heavily in there youth for example. You play NES games in an emulator, but nothing beats the original feeling of a real device.
@@dashcharger24 Yeah, I agree. But they're not gonna do this properly, they done something similar in the past if you remember when they resurrected winamp. It wasn't as good as the original, anything they do, just sucks, mainly cause it's not the same people who wrote winamp. They sold winamp, and ever since...
@@dashcharger24lol you use Spotify? I can't play most of my tracks there. It's not an audio player it only plays officially distributed music, no covers, no tracks, no remixes, no indie music
I still use Winamp. Thanks to its output plugin support, I can upmix stereo music in real time to AC3 using Ac3Filter matrix mixer plugin in my HTPC, so I can hear the music from all my surround speakers. As far as I know, no other players have such possibility.
Fun fact - Justin Frankel, who (with others) developed Winamp and sold it to AOL in 1999, went on to develop the incredible DAW, REAPER, which he still actively develops and updates with a small team
In every country, there is a definition of abusive conditions. If a condition is impossible to obtain, like copyleft and licence restrictions, then it is considered nonexistent in the first place.
I.E. Doctrine of impossibility, which forfeits a contract where due to neither party's fault contract became impossible (not impractical, Doctrine of frustration is for that) to execute/adhere to. If the conditions were impossible from the outset, the contract would be treated as nonexistent in the first place, at least according to Internet case library. Abusive conditions are, I suspect, a mistranslation from Polish, as neither precedent protects from "abusive" terms, and abusive conditions is a very loaded term in itself in English (rather than "unjust" or "unfair" it's closer to "violent" or "torture" in meaning).
There's also the "Court should attempt to interpret the contract so as to remove or ignore the absurdity." and "the court should engage in fact-finding to give the contract the most sensible and reasonable interpretation" opinions which suggest that suggest that court may throw it all out, or try to interpet it in some sensible manner that the court chooses. So who knows?
Wouldn't that mean that standard copyright protection is in the place? Which would automatically mean you are able to do any operation using GitHub (including viewing, downloading, forking and modifying the source code), but nothing otherwise (unless explicitly allowed by developer)?
@@maybenations The term "abusive condition" is not a mistranslation. It's an actual legal thing that creates an intermediate situation in which you don't fully break the contract. You keep it effective but with those unreasonable conditions removed, effectively keeping the abusive party bound to their side of the agreement while freeing the abused party of the unreasonable compensation.
It was in the afterlife for 20+ years. Can't imagine what confidential can even be there (and too lazy to look myself). Even government secrets are published after a number of years.
I'm currently in the process of helping moving sources from tortoisesvn to git in my company. It's all hellish legacy software sources btw. Like, I've made commits to the svn this year.
@@nobodyimportant7804 CVS was much worse. Hey Subversion's motto was "CVS done right'. The Linus came and said "tha's hot garbage". TBH, at the time, you had the choice between SVN and commercial offerings that were as expensive as they were total garbage. If you wanted real nightmares, there was Rational Clearcase. It was so horrible that many projects hired a full time Clearcase admin the same way there are full time database admins for Oracle. I even worked once for a company that had an entire team dedicated to Clearcase. That thing replaced many UNIX tools with the Clearcase version and pretended to augment the UNIX filesystem with a Clearcase extension. Worst idea ever. Every time you typed a Clearcase command, it would send two requests on the network: one to check the license in real time on a license server, and one to check a distant "artefacts repo". Not only was all iof this entirely unnecessary and painfully slow, the Clearcase tools were set in the path BEFORE the standard UNIX tools, so if you typed ls, it would use the Clearcase version of ls, which had even more obscure options than the UNIX versions. (Also if you think git is complex, you didn't dabble into the Clearcase configuration file). And so if the license server was down, or the network had an issue, your entire UNIX would hang indefinitely. And suddenly, dozens of software devs were gathering around the coffee machine for half a day, costing the company a fortune. Needless to say git wiped the floor with these garbage tools and they all went to the dustbin of history.
He did not let go of Flappybird, it was more or less stolen from hin under the pretext it was "abandoned". Which is ironic since it is absolute valid decision to "unpublish" it. That's not abandoning in my view. This is one of those absolute BS stories.
The license really sounds like it was written by some LLM that doesn't understand what a license is, and it just has copied some lines from other licenses because they appeared in the training data so many times. For example section 6 is literally taken directly from the GNU GPLv3, the final paragraph of section 2. In GNU GPL, it makes sense, because section 10 is the section that makes the license copyleft. In this winamp pseudo-license it makes no sense, because the section it refers to, section 5, places restrictions on you. This pseudo-license cannot be taken seriously. There's a reason why you shouldn't delegate legal tasks to AI.
"For example section 6 is literally taken directly from the GNU GPLv3" I wonder if they can be sued for copyright infringement on the GPL now...? I guess it depends on how many lines
@@autohmae It's just one sentence. Probably isn't a violation, since many licenses steal the whole "no warranty" section from each other, but this just serves as an example for those who think that AI cannot plagiarize.
@@autohmae Unless they licensed the license file under the GPL... but that would mean anyone could just modify the license to not prohibit forking, since the GPL would allow them to distribute modified version of that license, right?
@@ailivac the author and copyright holder of the GPL license is the Free Software Foundation or something like that. The 1 I checked is version 2, it's the first line after the title of the license text.
I remember using it on a P166, which could barely play an MP3 without skipping if it was the only program running. Very likely a 128kbit one. I use foobar2000 now (at least when I have to use Windows). Wish it was fully open source, but even without that it's pretty good.
Not really surprised. This type of thing usually happens because they're not willing to hire a lawyer and 2-3 software engineers to comb through the repo for a year and bring it up to date and prepare it to be open source. Making a formerly closed software project open source requires work and/or money and most of the time corporations/owners are not willing to put in the work or hire skilled people to do that work for them.
Though it's honestly pretty sad that open sourcing a closed-source project normally requires making sure you haven't done anything too illegal. I wish they would just require all copyrighted code to be sent in source form to the relevant authorities.
@@futuza Well, in the world we live in anything writing-related that is produced is implicitly copyrighted even without an explicit notice. However, with most mediums in order for anyone to appreciate the copyrighted work, such as a book, they have to have access to the "source code" i.e. you can't usefully simultaneously copyright it, prevent people from seeing it, and sell it. Software is different, and as a result it's often impossible to know what third-party copyrighted material has been illegitimately included in a proprietary project. Thus, if there were some requirement of transparency of source (either via central agency or by requiring software distribution to always be done in a source-available fashion) it would in my opinion be beneficial to consumers and open-source authors.
they're not technically it could be possible, but realistically it's not, you can't sue someone for trying to clean up their mistakes of leaking proprietary stuff, but due to not knowing how git works, leaving it available for everyone, not to mention it's like, "Copyright 2000-2002 Dolby Laboratories, Inc." etc, and I'm fairly sure nobody's gonna actually bother to sue them for 20 year old code, lol
@@jan_harald Copyright lasts for 70 years. Dolby are well within their rights to sue, as is the developer of the GPL licenced code that's now been revealed was used for decades in Winamp without proper licensing.
@@jan_harald The GNU project might try to sue the original or current devs, but I suspect that several of the more aggressive companies are absolutely going to sue regardless. It's a chance to make an example of someone who dares to fuck up around them.
@@itskdog Dolby would be in their right but do they care enough about 2002 code to actually make a move? I doubt it. This is ancient stuff, probably completely reverse-engineered for a decade or more, doesn't hold much value anymore. I think they won't bother.
It's sad Winamp ended up in the hands of such people... it was such a great software when I was a kid. It's still my go to player but the old version before it was sold... I have many old versions of it backed up on discs...
Got the 5.66 version from 2013 meself (Let's go Winamp Heritage!) I'm a bit surprised that it still runs pretty much perfectly, given I'm on Win 11 (not by my choice, my old computer broke and I needed a new one ASAP because my phone was also broken during that time period, and some of my favorite games don't do well running in emulation from Linux)
at 10:35, When Line 33 was removed, Git reports a change at the end because the original file lacked a newline, while the new file includes one. Although the content remains the same, Git treats the addition of this newline as a significant update and highlights the entire line as modified. since technically speaking line 80 is now line 79 with new the new line at the end this means line 80 was removed. Since github doesn't show you hidden character updates per line, you get the entire line showing as new or deleted compared to minor word changes ========== Original: 80: [...]distribution of modified versions.{EOF} ========== ========== Changed: 79: [...]distribution of modified versions.{newline marker} [This is considered entirely new info] 80: {EOF} [shows as deleted] ==================== Hope that clears it up.
The BuildTools directory... 1. Make a backdoored version of git 2. Submit a friendly PR making it look like you updated it 3. ??? Man, I love windows users distributing binaries like this.
@@theairaccumulator7144 Of course you can. You just typically don't. For one, packages tend to be signed by whomever built them and for two, I know how git from arch was built, so I can just use that to compare to the mystery binary. Much less so for these binaries. Anyway, I was mostly thinking of android+windows users when I wrote this. Just look on XDA how many people offer to give you downloads to common binaries like adb/fastboot.
yeah not really a quirk. the whole point of a diff algorithm is to show what changed, so if it shows nothing for two different files it would effectively be defunct
@@jan_harald no it doesn't have to, it was just a misinterpretation of old posix standards. Posix defines that a line must end in a newline character but it also says that the last line in a file doesn't have to end in a newline character. Some early devs forgot the last part and implemented their software so EVERY line has to end in a newline character in order to be parsed, which everyone then copied to stay compatible with each other's programs.
@@autohmae It showed it as every character in the line changed though, not just highlighting an EOL change which I have seen some diffs do in a special way before.
I just had to clone the repo to preserve this beautiful trainwreck. It's under 1GB compressed download btw for anyone who is interested. about 6GB on disk.
@@ScorgRus Most of tthe data is in the git tree, not in the working directory so i'm not sure of the exact composition. I just had to clone it for the sheer value of preserving it lmao
@@transcendtient Probably he wanted to say "I also protest not being able to fork it". As a non-english speaker, I feel this because I used to commit this kind of mistakes often.
yes and no impulse tracker support leaves something to be desired, it's certainly not flawless and it messes up some channel FX i know because i made shit tons of IT mods back in the day before i moved over to modplug tracker lol same for screamtracker mods then again, even modplug isn't flawless in that regard the VGM plugins are more solid
Its nothing new, and technicly can happen naturly as if you consider company, theres old people going away and new once coming in there place, eventully replacing entire company.Look company like Atari, or Team17 i dont thjnk theres anyothe there left from there golden amiga times
Reminds of when people asked Volition to release the source code of Saints Row 2 so people could fix it but they couldn't because it had a bunch of proprietary stuff in it like Dolby stuff lol. But boy do I wish they did that had an idiot that wouldn't know better :/
@@randomcatdude Github mobile bug, it actually have -1.2K+- 50K+ files changed (it actually only meant to change the license file to MIT one, but somehow some patches and PRs also included there as well)
This looks like what happens when a grifter money person pushes some poor sucker lacking experience to do a job instead of paying skilled labour a fair rate. Any proprietary code base likely needs months of careful review and refactoring before a source release and this looks like it wasn't reviewed at all. While it didn't happen here some restrictions on distribution can be compatible with open source style licensing. Trademarks need to be protected and you might want to be able to takedown people distributing trojaned binaries. So having a clause that distributions can't incorporate trademarks wouldn't be so bad. Distributors call the distributed version IceWeasel or something. The real WTF is why anyone would use WinAmp in 2024.
because it's cool, and got a lot of plugins, duh then again if you don't need some weird-ass plugins (like some guy wants to listen to some console game raw audio files that need a plugin), you could just use winamp skins with something like audacious, lol
also i reportedly still works just fine even under win11, and y'know, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", there's ZERO reasons to not use an "old" offline audio player (or other such software), if you don't have some malware hiding in the mp3 files, then who cares?
I still use Winamp classic for Android because in their shoutcast for some reason there's a bunch of Internet stations I can't get to any other way especially a couple old time radio stations
Apparently the Radionomy(firm who developed winamp after AOL, After Nullsoft, i.e. all winamps newer than 5.7) group was bought by some Turkish company two years ago, when the "Llama Group" branding started last year
The company's history is really weird, and mostly non-existing. Why AOL has given them the source code, still bothers me. The MS story was probably made up, but it's a huge cap between MS and this name.
Fun fact: On github if you have a public repo with at least one fork even if you remove the main repo or set it to private. the source code will still be accessible to the public.
The C Linux kernel devs: If we change our code and your rust breaks, we don't care, you can't force us to learn rust XD Microsoft employee: Ok, i'll quit rust for linux.
Licensing is hard and I could totally see some inexperienced github user falling into these traps. But this isn't an individual right? This a company or organization. They announced ahead of time what they were doing. How on earth did they not seek legal counsel in creating their own license and posting this code using it?
Because they thought nerds on github are friendly. These guys were naive, did mistakes. Now this will be an example, to not even try to put any code into the public if you can‘t afford a Laywer and have no appetite to get ridiculed by a bunch of neck beards. Sheep setting their barn on fire. Nice work.
@@dinoscheidt I mean, you don't need a lawyer to know not to write your own license without legal advice. like that's a very common piece of knowledge. also, it seems kind of common sense to try to not release proprietary source code into a public github repository? it also doesn't take that long to check a repo to see if there's anything proprietary in there. as for the licensing, well, the license literally isn't open source. it's extremely restrictive; it basically keeps all the power with the maintainer of the repo and doesn't allow the community to do anything with the source code. the point of open source is for it to be _open_ and usable by other projects, but this license does the opposite. if people were to learn anything here, it's (1) if you say you're gonna open source something, actually open source it and (2) maybe check your repo for shit that shouldn't be there before publishing it? like there would be a lot less ridicule if they had done those things, and neither of those things are a huge ask.
Yes, I used Winamp back in my Windows days. Heck, I've even used it sometimes in wine, because Winamp has the most file format plugins ever and I listened to some exotic file formats (music dumped from old console games) where there was only good support in such a Winamp plugin. Now I use Audacious.
Aw man, I checked it out and it can't manage to handle USFs correctly (or rather the USF plugin keeps rebreaking with each update) and lacks several consoles in its available plugins. I thought that I'd finally found a better all-in-one than relying on kind of esoteric plugins and constantly wondering if it's time to go through the slog of setting up x86 foobar2k.
@TioMegamanX it is. I don't know about other distros cause they use binaries but I use gentoo and have the flags for near everything on. It works fine for me and loops fine
@@TioMegamanX Yeah, that and the constantly breaking USF plugin that keeps hanging are why I'm not bothering with Audacious. If I need an upgrade I'll go with the x86 foobar version. I'd rather have a a fossil of a program that still works than have to bother with getting a whole emulator out to play my Castlevania 64 tracks with the rest of them. (as it is I've found ONE edge case in Winamp 5.66 and that's the game's fault, turns out Boktai 3 uses a weird tweaked sound engine even compared to the other Boktai games, according to notes on troubleshooting SAPPY to work with these and Golden Sun.)
Theres nothing wrong with that if someone willing contribute, thing is you need to do it right to not look silly and make people disrespected. Also considering there action, they not really trustworthy to check the submitted code.
9:50 this might originally be a svn repo. remember Justin using this for other projects. this would explain some of the behavior, as svn works very different.
I loved, loved, LOVED ❤ Winamp in the 90’s, and was quite sad to see its passing. Now I have a software trinket to dig into. Thanks for publishing this video or I wouldn’t have known to go and download it (but not at HEAD).
Came here just to comment. Just watched your video on primagens page. As a child who was in the computers when it was like the best media player ever, I used it my whole youth and loved it. That said, 30 years later, I'm now a full-time developer and this situation that they've created is insane. This is a fantastic coverage of the situation. By the way, thank you so much for making this🙏🏻 new sub by the way 🤙🏻
I never stopped using Winamp. Still run my 5.6 version today. Better than all the adware, spyware software distributed today. It's small, fast, can still encode mp3s, flac files with it. It's a music player. At some point software does not need updates, so it can make you believe it will do your dishes for you and keep the money flowing to investment firms. I absolutely dispise subscription based software... Anyway, great back then, great now.
Im an old winamp user. It was my primary music player from about 1999 to 2012. I still have it installed and occasionally use it when Im not streaming music. Cant say its as good as it once was. I loved using shoutcast in the mid 2000's for music streams and the video streams people had going on there.
Ah, Winamp! I used Winamp back in the day. Since then I used Apple iTunes for the longest time, mainly because their good implementation of smart playlists as well as the ease of handling podcast subscriptions. When I switched to using Linux as my main system some years ago, I couldn't use iTunes anymore, so now I'm using Strawberry for music and gPodder for podcasts.
0:10:26 In external GIT tools, you can see the reason: -This custom License aims to maintain the collaborative nature of the project while restricting the distribution of modified versions. \ No newline at end of file +This custom License aims to maintain the collaborative nature of the project while restricting the distribution of modified versions. I.e.: The old version does not have a new line at end of file, the new version now has.
The Title Situation Is Crazy
Every Situation Is Crazy
The slop thickens
The comment section is crazy on this one
Brodie is becoming the MoistCritikal of Linux
"It's done" "It's over"
More funny part is, they don't appear to be using git at all. Judging by the commits, they use GitHub's web interface to do everything. I bet the whole repo was uploaded by drag-and-dropping a directory to a browser.
Which means the guy resposible for that has literally 0 knowledge about git and never actually used it.
If Brodie clicked on the verified text on a commit it would've said that the commit was made using github's web interface
Winamp3 predates Git by several years, and GitHub by several more. I wouldn’t be surprised if Justin and Nullsoft weren’t even using SVN back then haha
Unless they made the extensive effort to turn ancient repo history into Git commits, you would expect a giant, monolithic commit with a few tweak commits here and there.
since there's TortoiseSVN in the "build tools", they've very likely used SVN internally, and someone just checked out the latest version and dropped it into Github..
that makes there being a git.exe in build tool dir even more funny, lmao
@@enginerdy SVN launched in 2000, Winamp in 1997. 1997 was when most people were connecting to the internet for the first time.
As a serial copyright hater, I love when things get soft-deleted from Git repos by people who clearly have no idea how Git repos work.
I mean, you literally cannot delete something from GitHub if there are forks. Even if you rewrite the history, the deleted commits and code is still on GitHub's server and accessible if you have the URL. This is not a fault of GitHub, it's just a consequence of how their architecture is designed. There are dozens of videos on this topic already.
Can you even hard-delete commits? The only thing you can do is overwrite, but it will break the commit tree for everyone else, right? It also doesn't fix the forks, that still have your Dolby files, as syncing needs the forker to do so.
@@dashcharger24you can, but it’s slightly annoying and rewrites everything after whatever you deleted as all the following commits must be redone.
@@chrishoppner150 often times you can still find the old stuff if you have the commit hash anyway
Fun fact: they did indeed rebase + force push twice two days ago, so you won't find some confidential code anymore.
... well unless you know how github works, so you go to the activity tab where each forced push is logged, along with the git commit hashes, and then you just start browsing the repo before the force push.
The only way they can permanently remove the leaked shit from their repo is to delete the whole repo, along with the fork network.
They're actually so incompetent with git, that they once rebased the tree, pushed that to another branch, made it a PR, and then merged it back into the pre-rebase tree.
Them accidentally leaking closed source code is infinitely funny to me
As long as the repo still exists, you can still grab the leaked source which shouldn't be there.
i'm cool with legacy software being unconsentually open sourced. makes preservation easier.
good, copyright shouldn't exist
They use GPL code, which you CAN'T do unless the ENTIRE project is also GPL.
Meaning closing the source was illegal.
Also, this video is released too fast... now people found out that it even violates GPLv2 because it uses GPLv2-licensed libraries :D So that makes whole Winamp being licensed on GPLv2.
As I said at the end, there was always going to be more
Where
which libraries?
Ah, so it IS open source.
It was probably a joke, but in case it was not or any random reader has no understanding, here is why that is not:
To be a valid GPLv2 licensed program, all code must be licensed under a GPLv2 compatible license AND the GPLv2 license text must be available. Both cases are not met. Therefore the program is not really licensed on GPLv2.
_"You may not distribute modified versions of the software, whether in source or binary form"_ - That's not copyleft that's.. copynone?
Copy’nt
Copyright
Copywrong
pasteleft
"You can do free work for us developing this, but we still own everything."
Winamp, Winamp, it really whips the developers ass.
ROFL!!!
I CAME HERE LOOKING FOR THIS. THANK YOU!!!
My favorite pull request was the one adding Quake 2 to it, sadly deleted now but it's in internet archive (pull 104).
diabolical
It was deleted because the account was flagged
I saw it, that one was great. There was a nice argument about how it wasn't compatible with the license but the pull fixed that by changing the license of the project ;)
"I use Artix BTW" killed me
Pull request 34 tried to do the same thing with Doom (1993), made me laugh pretty hard.
I genuinely feel like 8 out of 10 closed source project repos are mess close to this. Many commercial programmers do not care about portability or consistent environment to run/compile their projects.
Yeah, my day job is closed source. Even if we gave most people our code, they couldn't do anything interesting with it. I don't need portability, I know exactly where and how my code will run.
I mean, it was written from 1996 to 2008.
old software is the best argument against closed source ever
Can confirm, this is exactly what closed source is like.
Open source isn't much better. I can't tell you how many open source libraries have the worst code ever and literally no build instructions. It's pure guesswork to figure out what libraries and versions they need to be built.
It's so much worse right now. The repo is being spammed with garbage issues. I wouldn't be surprised if they take the repo down entirely within the next day or 2
The video shows this.
@@_MasterLink_it shows ones from the previous day, I'm talking about the current Russian spam that's been happening for the past like 2 or 3 hours. That's why I said "it's so much worse RIGHT NOW". The winamp repo in the video has 14 open issues, the repo right now has over 400.
@@HiImKyle Holy shit
@@HiImKyle you didn't specify that at all in your comment. Whatsoever, so that's more of a communication breakdown on your part. Shoulda coulda woulda.
@@_MasterLink_brother, "RIGHT NOW"...? What part of that did you miss read? But sure, w/e
I’m glad people like them exist because they make my Impostor Syndrome go away.
My favorite thing about it is (as an issue showcases) that the license is very likely written by ChatGPT
Someone put it on a detector, issue #24 comment by t3duk
It definitely has that vibe and I've had gpt write licenses before
Those detectors are very often not accurate, but I feel like ChatGPT would do a better job
@@BrodieRobertson The definitions are pretty identical to GPLv3 except for some(like "propagate") yet the ones not defined are used in the definition of others, it's the kinda stuff you would catch as a human but a LLM would overlook so I still think it's pretty likely to be machine written
@@Calajese I'm not saying it's impossible, with everything else in the repo it would be on brand
Rewrite in Holy C
TempleAmp
@@S0ft_b4b3 From the moment I understood the weakness of my code, it disgusted me. I crave the strength and certainty of HolyC. I aspire to the purity of TempleOS.
or TemplarAmp
@@raypol1 Well, my comment got deleted. Here goes again:
From the moment I understood the weakness of my code... it disgusted me. I crave the strength and certainty of HolyC. I aspire to the purity of TempleOS.
@@daedalus6433 Amazing, love the Mechanicus reference 🤣
"We're copyleft! Also, no forking!" What an absolute forking mess! 😂
This isn't just stupid. It's advanced, weaponized stupid.
something something make thing idiot-proof, universe will create a better idiot
The best and most accurate comment is one of the first made on the issue, which is just a GIF of a guy shoving popcorn in his mouth. That's all of us.
The classic look but don't touch license.
Oh, they want you to touch it, but only so they can benefit themselves.
Ah, the stripper license
The Strip Club of licenses.
@@Hawktuah4Ever You seem pretty angry there, Hawktuah4Ever.
If their experience of Source Control is TortoiseSVN , no wonder they can't git properly. Inclusion of licensed code that can't be distributed is why a lot of proprietary software will never be open sourced (it is why the original Dos version of Doom was not open sourced but the Linux version was, The Dos version had a licensed sound engine that was removed in the Linux port)
I think there are no developers involved here, maybe jsut a marketing team. THe original developer seem to have used SVN. No git back then so is SVN or CVS (maybe both). This guys just unzipped a backup copy and send it to github, not sure if they even used git for that
@@framegrace1 The residual presence of SVN files in a project migrated from SVN to GIT does not prove there were no devs involved. Just that they didn't bother cleaning up dead files from the repo after migration.
I have myself transferred several projects in my company from CVS or TFS to our private GIT repo and I chose to keep the cvsignore and/or tfignore files. Because those files serve as a rapid indication to future devs who don't have the full knowledge that at some point in the history of the project there has been a repo migration and there is always a possibility that some bugs they discover might be related to the migration process.
What is really problematic is the leakage of data owned by other companies, certificates, and a legally binding statement that explicitly violates the TOS of the platform on which it's published, and after correction still contradicts in v1.0.1 its own name. A "collaborative licence" that says nobody is allowed to collaborate on the project.
This is proof that their entire team has zero clue about laws, contracts and licences.
Yep basically they should have take better look at the code and filter out all that is under proprietary licenses that wont allow distribution. But ya basically when it's in the internet. It stay in the internet. No way to take anything back.
This repo looks like the first time I installed Dropbox and didn't even bother to setup which folders I wanted to be synced.
You had to manually install Dropbox?
@@alastor--radiodemon7556 are you implying that Dropbox is installed by default or smth?
@@alastor--radiodemon7556Yeah once upon a time, in a magical land, it used to be that Windows came fairly unbloated and you actually just had to install the software you wanted. God do I wish we could return to those times, instead nowadays it's all capitalism and LLM/generative AI bullshit until tech and the internet will be completely unusable.
@@Yuzuki1337 i know windows 7 isn't a good example since even that was bloated ESPECIALLY later on in its life with updates but dayum windows 7 was the goat
My guess is that a single guy/small team got the rights to the project by chance, Had ambitious plans and are now in way over their head.
If so, there's the possibility that they get bullied out by the community, slap a real OSS license on it and abandon the whole thing
Maybe they legally can’t because it contains non-free licensed stuff but they clearly don’t have a lawyer on staff.
@@realGBx64It is also possible that some of the things contained therein have never had a license or no longer have a license.
It takes days or weeks of work to clear a project and make it usable by everyone, and that work must be paid for.
For a failed project.
@@realGBx64 They could just release the project under some FOSS license, remove every line of code that infringes copyright, and allow community to make it work without them. I don't see a problem.
@@MarcinKralkaPrepping a code base like that, especially a large one, takes even big companies a good few months. You'd think that's what they were doing between the announcement and now, but nope.
Not a small group, but a company.
Llama group owns the rights, and did so since 2014. But they are barely alive at this point.
0:18 -the original creator of flappy bird did not let go of the trademark. He was bullied in court until it was forcibly removed from him.- I was wrong, he did indeed abandon the trademark.
This isn't a flappy bird video, the reason he let it go isn't important lol
the uploader doesn't appreciate the correction but I do
@@xXx_Regulus_xXx it's interesting information sure, but we're talking about Winamp lol
@@BrodieRobertson One sentence to be more correct, or one sentence to be less. It's not like youtube will whack you for an arbitrary word limit, and you could have people asking about the "flappy bird" story, instead of complaining that the Ytuber mentioned an interesting thing badly (And yes, mentioning it at all as an analogy/reference, without mentioning the biggest difference feels badly, especially if it's the ONLY other example you mention, instead of being nestled somewhere) :P Tripping out the door wouldn't matter that much if it wasn't such a good video otherwise
Yeah why just say thx for the Info when you can get defensive about it....
The last line change in the license file was most likely a line ending change
Geez that's a lot of BS for a 20+ year old music player. They are holding this ancient relic like it's the llama's catnip. Either release it proper or don't at all. Who cares. There's xmpp anyway.
It doesn't matter if better alternatives exist nowadays, that's not the point. It's just cool to see how your favorite player of the 90s/00s was written, and some people get a nice feeling by fixing or compiling it themselves.
I fully agree about people probably not using it anymore (Spotify exists nowadays), but I do understand some may have warm feelings about something they used heavily in there youth for example.
You play NES games in an emulator, but nothing beats the original feeling of a real device.
@@dashcharger24 Yeah, I agree. But they're not gonna do this properly, they done something similar in the past if you remember when they resurrected winamp. It wasn't as good as the original, anything they do, just sucks, mainly cause it's not the same people who wrote winamp. They sold winamp, and ever since...
@@dashcharger24 I actually still use WinAMP (specifically the 2013 build)!
@@dashcharger24lol you use Spotify? I can't play most of my tracks there. It's not an audio player it only plays officially distributed music, no covers, no tracks, no remixes, no indie music
I still use Winamp. Thanks to its output plugin support, I can upmix stereo music in real time to AC3 using Ac3Filter matrix mixer plugin in my HTPC, so I can hear the music from all my surround speakers. As far as I know, no other players have such possibility.
Fun fact - Justin Frankel, who (with others) developed Winamp and sold it to AOL in 1999, went on to develop the incredible DAW, REAPER, which he still actively develops and updates with a small team
It is an awesome and affordable program.
In every country, there is a definition of abusive conditions. If a condition is impossible to obtain, like copyleft and licence restrictions, then it is considered nonexistent in the first place.
I.E. Doctrine of impossibility, which forfeits a contract where due to neither party's fault contract became impossible (not impractical, Doctrine of frustration is for that) to execute/adhere to. If the conditions were impossible from the outset, the contract would be treated as nonexistent in the first place, at least according to Internet case library. Abusive conditions are, I suspect, a mistranslation from Polish, as neither precedent protects from "abusive" terms, and abusive conditions is a very loaded term in itself in English (rather than "unjust" or "unfair" it's closer to "violent" or "torture" in meaning).
There's also the "Court should attempt to interpret the contract so as to remove or ignore the absurdity." and "the court should engage in fact-finding to give the contract the most sensible and reasonable interpretation" opinions which suggest that suggest that court may throw it all out, or try to interpet it in some sensible manner that the court chooses. So who knows?
Wouldn't that mean that standard copyright protection is in the place? Which would automatically mean you are able to do any operation using GitHub (including viewing, downloading, forking and modifying the source code), but nothing otherwise (unless explicitly allowed by developer)?
@@maybenations The term "abusive condition" is not a mistranslation. It's an actual legal thing that creates an intermediate situation in which you don't fully break the contract. You keep it effective but with those unreasonable conditions removed, effectively keeping the abusive party bound to their side of the agreement while freeing the abused party of the unreasonable compensation.
"Confidential information."
not anymore
It was in the afterlife for 20+ years. Can't imagine what confidential can even be there (and too lazy to look myself). Even government secrets are published after a number of years.
They were so open they left a copy of everything they used
That's one way to do reproducible builds I suppose
So that's what they meant by copyleft!
ToroiseSVN?! "Now that's a name I've not heard in a long time."
That dropped me into a hole of nostalgia. Bad, nightmarish nostalgia, but still.
So many memories of forking MapleStory projects with TortoiseSVN.
I'm currently in the process of helping moving sources from tortoisesvn to git in my company. It's all hellish legacy software sources btw.
Like, I've made commits to the svn this year.
i still don't miss it
versioning systems are so shit to work with
@@nobodyimportant7804 CVS was much worse. Hey Subversion's motto was "CVS done right'. The Linus came and said "tha's hot garbage". TBH, at the time, you had the choice between SVN and commercial offerings that were as expensive as they were total garbage. If you wanted real nightmares, there was Rational Clearcase. It was so horrible that many projects hired a full time Clearcase admin the same way there are full time database admins for Oracle. I even worked once for a company that had an entire team dedicated to Clearcase. That thing replaced many UNIX tools with the Clearcase version and pretended to augment the UNIX filesystem with a Clearcase extension. Worst idea ever. Every time you typed a Clearcase command, it would send two requests on the network: one to check the license in real time on a license server, and one to check a distant "artefacts repo". Not only was all iof this entirely unnecessary and painfully slow, the Clearcase tools were set in the path BEFORE the standard UNIX tools, so if you typed ls, it would use the Clearcase version of ls, which had even more obscure options than the UNIX versions. (Also if you think git is complex, you didn't dabble into the Clearcase configuration file). And so if the license server was down, or the network had an issue, your entire UNIX would hang indefinitely. And suddenly, dozens of software devs were gathering around the coffee machine for half a day, costing the company a fortune.
Needless to say git wiped the floor with these garbage tools and they all went to the dustbin of history.
He did not let go of Flappybird, it was more or less stolen from hin under the pretext it was "abandoned".
Which is ironic since it is absolute valid decision to "unpublish" it. That's not abandoning in my view.
This is one of those absolute BS stories.
So, they basically released the source code for no reason since you can't fork it, and they illegally leaked closed source code? Wow.
You can fork it now, but yeah.
Closed source code that belongs to other companies who now have full rights to sue them for this.
@@Hawktuah4Ever So much anger.
@@Hawktuah4Ever Alas, your warning comes too late. I already mocked you.
The license really sounds like it was written by some LLM that doesn't understand what a license is, and it just has copied some lines from other licenses because they appeared in the training data so many times.
For example section 6 is literally taken directly from the GNU GPLv3, the final paragraph of section 2. In GNU GPL, it makes sense, because section 10 is the section that makes the license copyleft. In this winamp pseudo-license it makes no sense, because the section it refers to, section 5, places restrictions on you.
This pseudo-license cannot be taken seriously. There's a reason why you shouldn't delegate legal tasks to AI.
"For example section 6 is literally taken directly from the GNU GPLv3"
I wonder if they can be sued for copyright infringement on the GPL now...?
I guess it depends on how many lines
@@autohmae It's just one sentence. Probably isn't a violation, since many licenses steal the whole "no warranty" section from each other, but this just serves as an example for those who think that AI cannot plagiarize.
@@mini_bomba yeah, as mentioned 1 sentence is not significant enough for a lawsuit.
@@autohmae Unless they licensed the license file under the GPL... but that would mean anyone could just modify the license to not prohibit forking, since the GPL would allow them to distribute modified version of that license, right?
@@ailivac the author and copyright holder of the GPL license is the Free Software Foundation or something like that. The 1 I checked is version 2, it's the first line after the title of the license text.
wdym "used" winamp? I still use winamp.
same
Same
now you know how the amish feel
I remember using it on a P166, which could barely play an MP3 without skipping if it was the only program running. Very likely a 128kbit one.
I use foobar2000 now (at least when I have to use Windows). Wish it was fully open source, but even without that it's pretty good.
Same
Not really surprised. This type of thing usually happens because they're not willing to hire a lawyer and 2-3 software engineers to comb through the repo for a year and bring it up to date and prepare it to be open source. Making a formerly closed software project open source requires work and/or money and most of the time corporations/owners are not willing to put in the work or hire skilled people to do that work for them.
Though it's honestly pretty sad that open sourcing a closed-source project normally requires making sure you haven't done anything too illegal. I wish they would just require all copyrighted code to be sent in source form to the relevant authorities.
@@traveller23e how would that work?
@@futuza Well, in the world we live in anything writing-related that is produced is implicitly copyrighted even without an explicit notice. However, with most mediums in order for anyone to appreciate the copyrighted work, such as a book, they have to have access to the "source code" i.e. you can't usefully simultaneously copyright it, prevent people from seeing it, and sell it. Software is different, and as a result it's often impossible to know what third-party copyrighted material has been illegitimately included in a proprietary project. Thus, if there were some requirement of transparency of source (either via central agency or by requiring software distribution to always be done in a source-available fashion) it would in my opinion be beneficial to consumers and open-source authors.
They're about to be sued out of existence by proprietary and open source developers alike. lol
finally! the one thing we can agree on!
Linux and Windows shall shake hands at last!
they're not
technically it could be possible, but realistically it's not, you can't sue someone for trying to clean up their mistakes of leaking proprietary stuff, but due to not knowing how git works, leaving it available for everyone, not to mention it's like, "Copyright 2000-2002 Dolby Laboratories, Inc." etc, and I'm fairly sure nobody's gonna actually bother to sue them for 20 year old code, lol
@@jan_harald Copyright lasts for 70 years. Dolby are well within their rights to sue, as is the developer of the GPL licenced code that's now been revealed was used for decades in Winamp without proper licensing.
@@jan_harald The GNU project might try to sue the original or current devs, but I suspect that several of the more aggressive companies are absolutely going to sue regardless. It's a chance to make an example of someone who dares to fuck up around them.
@@itskdog Dolby would be in their right but do they care enough about 2002 code to actually make a move? I doubt it. This is ancient stuff, probably completely reverse-engineered for a decade or more, doesn't hold much value anymore. I think they won't bother.
It's sad Winamp ended up in the hands of such people... it was such a great software when I was a kid.
It's still my go to player but the old version before it was sold... I have many old versions of it backed up on discs...
Got the 5.66 version from 2013 meself (Let's go Winamp Heritage!)
I'm a bit surprised that it still runs pretty much perfectly, given I'm on Win 11 (not by my choice, my old computer broke and I needed a new one ASAP because my phone was also broken during that time period, and some of my favorite games don't do well running in emulation from Linux)
Discs. 🥹
I still use it, but if memory serves me correctly Justin Frankel abandoned it like 20 years ago and sold it to AOL.
@@ocstrangeness well AOL did a decent job keeping everything up to date and functional at least...
Winamp make everything sound so bad, compared to Aimp or even stupid media player.
at 10:35, When Line 33 was removed, Git reports a change at the end because the original file lacked a newline, while the new file includes one. Although the content remains the same, Git treats the addition of this newline as a significant update and highlights the entire line as modified. since technically speaking line 80 is now line 79 with new the new line at the end this means line 80 was removed. Since github doesn't show you hidden character updates per line, you get the entire line showing as new or deleted compared to minor word changes
==========
Original:
80: [...]distribution of modified versions.{EOF}
==========
==========
Changed:
79: [...]distribution of modified versions.{newline marker} [This is considered entirely new info]
80: {EOF} [shows as deleted]
====================
Hope that clears it up.
The BuildTools directory...
1. Make a backdoored version of git
2. Submit a friendly PR making it look like you updated it
3. ???
Man, I love windows users distributing binaries like this.
You can do the same thing on Linux tho. If you hack the distro's servers you can put out malicious package updates the same way.
@@theairaccumulator7144 Of course you can. You just typically don't. For one, packages tend to be signed by whomever built them and for two, I know how git from arch was built, so I can just use that to compare to the mystery binary. Much less so for these binaries.
Anyway, I was mostly thinking of android+windows users when I wrote this. Just look on XDA how many people offer to give you downloads to common binaries like adb/fastboot.
@@theairaccumulator7144packages on distros are signed by the maintainers iirc
You'd have to have the certificates
lmao those issues looking like steam's VAC discussion forum
It's a "free, copyleft license" because you can freely copy the license to use in your projects. Not the source it covers, though. LMAO
The only trouble is when you compile the source code, only to find out you are not allowed to distribute the bits to your own system.
Winamp code licence is basically openwashing.
it does whip the llama's ass tho
GitHub showed the last line of the license as changed because it doesn't end in a new line. It's just a quirk of git's diff algorithm.
How is it a quirk ? Every diff tool has that enabled by default, you can often choose to not show whitespace changes though.
yeah not really a quirk. the whole point of a diff algorithm is to show what changed, so if it shows nothing for two different files it would effectively be defunct
technically every text file is supposed to end with a newline, so makes sense to highlight the error
@@jan_harald no it doesn't have to, it was just a misinterpretation of old posix standards. Posix defines that a line must end in a newline character but it also says that the last line in a file doesn't have to end in a newline character. Some early devs forgot the last part and implemented their software so EVERY line has to end in a newline character in order to be parsed, which everyone then copied to stay compatible with each other's programs.
@@autohmae It showed it as every character in the line changed though, not just highlighting an EOL change which I have seen some diffs do in a special way before.
I just had to clone the repo to preserve this beautiful trainwreck. It's under 1GB compressed download btw for anyone who is interested. about 6GB on disk.
~90% binaries?
@@ScorgRus Most of tthe data is in the git tree, not in the working directory so i'm not sure of the exact composition. I just had to clone it for the sheer value of preserving it lmao
for me it's like 1.5g for raw mirror and 2.5g for normal checked out repo, idk where your 6gb comes from?
6gb of what? It wasn't even that big when installed
@@jan_harald He's probably using Windows, it handles small files pretty shitty.
I was at ground zero for this shit show. I also protest forked it.
In protest of what?
@@transcendtient ur mom lol
@@transcendtient The license that said you couldn't fork it.
@@transcendtient Probably he wanted to say "I also protest not being able to fork it".
As a non-english speaker, I feel this because I used to commit this kind of mistakes often.
@@XeonProductions I hadn't gotten to that part of the video lol.
Good on you bruz.
They just now removed or privated the repo, so funny
i still have winamp 2.95 installed. it's one of the easier ways to listen to tracker music.
yes and no
impulse tracker support leaves something to be desired, it's certainly not flawless and it messes up some channel FX
i know because i made shit tons of IT mods back in the day before i moved over to modplug tracker lol
same for screamtracker mods
then again, even modplug isn't flawless in that regard
the VGM plugins are more solid
vlc
Seems like buying or stealing old and nostalgic IP's is going to be the next NFT/crypto/web 3.0 bullshit.
Its nothing new, and technicly can happen naturly as if you consider company, theres old people going away and new once coming in there place, eventully replacing entire company.Look company like Atari, or Team17 i dont thjnk theres anyothe there left from there golden amiga times
He really did pull a penguinz0 on us. Shocking.
Wait, what happened to him?
When the situation is crazy:
Shoutout to WACUP (WinAmp Community Update Project) and it's dev Dro for keeping WinAmp alive and kicking on modern systems.
"WHY IS TORTOISESVN HERE?" Brodie said calmly.
"Winamp"
Now that's a name I haven't heard in a long, long time. A very long time...
i just saw it 5 minutes ago on my desktop
have been using 2.95 for 20 years now lol
Reminds of when people asked Volition to release the source code of Saints Row 2 so people could fix it but they couldn't because it had a bunch of proprietary stuff in it like Dolby stuff lol.
But boy do I wish they did that had an idiot that wouldn't know better :/
12:56 that ':3' was made by me. It's basically my 3rd attempt (after #32 and #36) to change that stupid license to MIT one.
The best pull request there
how did you manage ∞ files changed lmao
@@randomcatdude Github mobile bug, it actually have -1.2K+- 50K+ files changed (it actually only meant to change the license file to MIT one, but somehow some patches and PRs also included there as well)
@@NekoSam395 i saw that on desktop but ok
This looks like what happens when a grifter money person pushes some poor sucker lacking experience to do a job instead of paying skilled labour a fair rate. Any proprietary code base likely needs months of careful review and refactoring before a source release and this looks like it wasn't reviewed at all. While it didn't happen here some restrictions on distribution can be compatible with open source style licensing. Trademarks need to be protected and you might want to be able to takedown people distributing trojaned binaries. So having a clause that distributions can't incorporate trademarks wouldn't be so bad. Distributors call the distributed version IceWeasel or something. The real WTF is why anyone would use WinAmp in 2024.
because it's cool, and got a lot of plugins, duh
then again if you don't need some weird-ass plugins (like some guy wants to listen to some console game raw audio files that need a plugin), you could just use winamp skins with something like audacious, lol
also i reportedly still works just fine even under win11, and y'know, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", there's ZERO reasons to not use an "old" offline audio player (or other such software), if you don't have some malware hiding in the mp3 files, then who cares?
I still use Winamp classic for Android because in their shoutcast for some reason there's a bunch of Internet stations I can't get to any other way especially a couple old time radio stations
8:16 - First time I've seen Brodie laugh like this in a YT video lol
Apparently the Radionomy(firm who developed winamp after AOL, After Nullsoft, i.e. all winamps newer than 5.7) group was bought by some Turkish company two years ago, when the "Llama Group" branding started last year
It's a big mess of companies buying companies, in my earlier Winamp video I went through this spiderweb
The company's history is really weird, and mostly non-existing. Why AOL has given them the source code, still bothers me. The MS story was probably made up, but it's a huge cap between MS and this name.
Fun fact: On github if you have a public repo with at least one fork even if you remove the main repo or set it to private. the source code will still be accessible to the public.
Implement skibidi toilet
Now write it in Rust.
-I don't know how to code, it just pisses off the C crowd.-
The C Linux kernel devs: If we change our code and your rust breaks, we don't care, you can't force us to learn rust XD
Microsoft employee: Ok, i'll quit rust for linux.
Licensing is hard and I could totally see some inexperienced github user falling into these traps. But this isn't an individual right? This a company or organization. They announced ahead of time what they were doing. How on earth did they not seek legal counsel in creating their own license and posting this code using it?
I mean, they are NFT pushers, it's not at all surprising they're this dumb
Because they thought nerds on github are friendly. These guys were naive, did mistakes. Now this will be an example, to not even try to put any code into the public if you can‘t afford a Laywer and have no appetite to get ridiculed by a bunch of neck beards. Sheep setting their barn on fire. Nice work.
@@dinoscheidt Nerds on GitHub are a lot nicer than... *checks notes* Microsoft, Dolby Laboratories, Intel, and QT Group's lawyers will be.
@@dinoscheidt Only already dumb would make these conclusions and ignore the reasons.
@@dinoscheidt I mean, you don't need a lawyer to know not to write your own license without legal advice. like that's a very common piece of knowledge. also, it seems kind of common sense to try to not release proprietary source code into a public github repository? it also doesn't take that long to check a repo to see if there's anything proprietary in there.
as for the licensing, well, the license literally isn't open source. it's extremely restrictive; it basically keeps all the power with the maintainer of the repo and doesn't allow the community to do anything with the source code. the point of open source is for it to be _open_ and usable by other projects, but this license does the opposite.
if people were to learn anything here, it's (1) if you say you're gonna open source something, actually open source it and (2) maybe check your repo for shit that shouldn't be there before publishing it?
like there would be a lot less ridicule if they had done those things, and neither of those things are a huge ask.
Yes, I used Winamp back in my Windows days. Heck, I've even used it sometimes in wine, because Winamp has the most file format plugins ever and I listened to some exotic file formats (music dumped from old console games) where there was only good support in such a Winamp plugin. Now I use Audacious.
Audacious is great. I can use winamp skins on that software
Aw man, I checked it out and it can't manage to handle USFs correctly (or rather the USF plugin keeps rebreaking with each update) and lacks several consoles in its available plugins. I thought that I'd finally found a better all-in-one than relying on kind of esoteric plugins and constantly wondering if it's time to go through the slog of setting up x86 foobar2k.
Windows days lol
Copyleft, yeah, my ass is copyleft
Free for all?
I want to say it... yeah: wide open ?
For free?!
@@puertoricanguy999 Maybe not free as in beer though
The Arcitec/WinLamp fork is the best. It renames the entire Winamp to WinLamp. That's... It 😂
500+ issues after this video was relased lmao.
edit: 700 in less than 5 minutes 💀
Winamp Winamp Winamp, it really kicks the lamas ass.
I used winamp tell I switched to Linux. Now I am Audacious user.
audacious has a winamp theme as well
I used WinAmp for a long time - until foobar appeared and I stopped caring about visuals in a player. The plugins were awesome for both.
I just wish the .spc for SNES music on Audacious was loop capable like the winamp plugin was, cuz having SNES music on its actual loop was nice.
@TioMegamanX it is. I don't know about other distros cause they use binaries but I use gentoo and have the flags for near everything on. It works fine for me and loops fine
@@TioMegamanX Yeah, that and the constantly breaking USF plugin that keeps hanging are why I'm not bothering with Audacious. If I need an upgrade I'll go with the x86 foobar version. I'd rather have a a fossil of a program that still works than have to bother with getting a whole emulator out to play my Castlevania 64 tracks with the rest of them.
(as it is I've found ONE edge case in Winamp 5.66 and that's the game's fault, turns out Boktai 3 uses a weird tweaked sound engine even compared to the other Boktai games, according to notes on troubleshooting SAPPY to work with these and Golden Sun.)
I feel like they didn’t open source their code as much as they made the code available to farm free work off of the community of coders.
Theres nothing wrong with that if someone willing contribute, thing is you need to do it right to not look silly and make people disrespected. Also considering there action, they not really trustworthy to check the submitted code.
I have no idea what you're talking about but props for making it entertaining.
I hope someone makes something like Winamp. I still use it today.
Loved Winamp because of DSP plugins, sad to see it like this.
Justin Frankel must be really happy it all came out to this after his program left the hands of AOL.
WACUP did a much better job in open-sourcing Winamp.
I absolutely did not know about the existence of Wacup!! Thank you for that!
9:50 this might originally be a svn repo. remember Justin using this for other projects. this would explain some of the behavior, as svn works very different.
7:33 this sounds like me when I started using github
I still commit wips to public repos..
I loved, loved, LOVED ❤ Winamp in the 90’s, and was quite sad to see its passing. Now I have a software trinket to dig into. Thanks for publishing this video or I wouldn’t have known to go and download it (but not at HEAD).
It also had a random song from Sean Bones for some reason
Probably it was for testing
Came here just to comment. Just watched your video on primagens page. As a child who was in the computers when it was like the best media player ever, I used it my whole youth and loved it.
That said, 30 years later, I'm now a full-time developer and this situation that they've created is insane. This is a fantastic coverage of the situation. By the way, thank you so much for making this🙏🏻 new sub by the way 🤙🏻
I'm wondering what the hell I have installed on my computer now. I thought it was winamp...
Winamp was one of the main apps that I would install.
I never stopped using Winamp. Still run my 5.6 version today. Better than all the adware, spyware software distributed today. It's small, fast, can still encode mp3s, flac files with it. It's a music player. At some point software does not need updates, so it can make you believe it will do your dishes for you and keep the money flowing to investment firms. I absolutely dispise subscription based software... Anyway, great back then, great now.
Thanks for the Dolby Code. Lol.
Im an old winamp user. It was my primary music player from about 1999 to 2012. I still have it installed and occasionally use it when Im not streaming music. Cant say its as good as it once was. I loved using shoutcast in the mid 2000's for music streams and the video streams people had going on there.
10:33 Might be non-printable characters, like carriage-return and linefeed (CR/LF)
In fact it is. The LF character is added at the end of the file.
I still have it on my Windows drive. The visualizer is fun to play around with and probably better when high.
Wacup? I need to check this out.
A billion years ago, I used winamp. It really whipped the llamas ass then.
so did i
i still do though, have been ysing the same winamp 2.95 for 20 years
Something tells me they "open sourced" it because they hope someone knows how to compile an exe.
Ah Winamp, master of comedy.
you made my day, mate! The funniest video I've seen on TH-cam in a LONG while. 😆
I doubt that somebody will have a problem with their license. But certainly, the sources have value and we should thank them for sharing them.
Incredible
Rewrite it in Java
where's the Rust crab profile pic guy when we least need him?
As a Server-Side Spring Boot service?... Honestly, I am a Java dev, but I'd never suggest it. Then again I know it's a joke so....
rewrite in in x86 assembly
Rewrite it in rust
@@igordasunddas3377 its no joke, rewrite linux kernel in java
Ah, Winamp! I used Winamp back in the day. Since then I used Apple iTunes for the longest time, mainly because their good implementation of smart playlists as well as the ease of handling podcast subscriptions. When I switched to using Linux as my main system some years ago, I couldn't use iTunes anymore, so now I'm using Strawberry for music and gPodder for podcasts.
At least hyprland is truly open source and free as in freedom :)
poz
cope
and as dogshit as winamp used to be
Nuh uh
Buy an ad
I LOVED Winamp. I was sorry the Llama died. I have been looking in hopes to find my Winamp. Cheers.
XMMS/Audacious for life! An actual Free re-implementation, only much better.
qmmp is strong too
0:10:26 In external GIT tools, you can see the reason:
-This custom License aims to maintain the collaborative nature of the project while restricting the distribution of modified versions.
\ No newline at end of file
+This custom License aims to maintain the collaborative nature of the project while restricting the distribution of modified versions.
I.e.: The old version does not have a new line at end of file, the new version now has.
8:17 mutahar?? Is that you?
Just distribute the patches, download the repo separately, merge both, build and you're done
they are probably just trolling lol
Where and how can one (easily) download the original unmodified repo release, with "everything"?
Yeah, that's not an open source license, it's open sores license. Just going to cause pain and allow toxicity in.