- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/45026885
You must log in or # to comment.
I know, right… Damn foss enthusiasts, you show 'em sources in order to get some cheap publicity, and those bastards immediately start raising a stink over you slightly attempting to fuck them over with licensing
Llamas ass, only slightly
fucked overwhipped.
I mean they don’t understand SW, Licenses and Git. It’s all out there now…
Hey at least we got some commercial secrets and licenses. It’s always nice to get those.
Stashing it on the shelf next to my copy of the Windows 2000 source code…
Is art.
Not that pretty.
For starters, it was never “open source”…
I must say, this whole shitshow has been pretty funny to watch :)
This, and the WordPress mess, are two contenders for this years “wtf are u even doing” award.
Sometimes the real value of a project isn’t its proposed worth, but the schadenfreude it offers instead. I’ve backed a few failed Kickstarters that I absolutely got my money’s worth on.
I’m completely out of the loop. What happened?
Winamp published their code as “open source”. Problem is…
- It wasn’t open source, it was proprietary but you can see the source code.
- Their custom license didn’t even allow forks, which is against GitHub TOS
- The codebase apparently contains proprietary code from third parties that they don’t have the right to relicense.
- The codebase apparently contains GPL code from third parties that they probably didn’t have the right to make proprietary in the first place
On top of that, when told about the proprietary code, they deleted it from the repository thinking that was just the end if it. So they didn’t have any idea how git works either.
Wait, there’s GPL code there as well???
I’d heard of all the others but this ome kinda snuck under the radar with all the larger issues at play here
The article on theregister stated
Also inside the uploaded source code was some GPL 2 source code, which renders the not-very-open WCL moot.
Winamp source code was published on github, but the license said you can’t fork or share the code. Such a license isn’t compatible with github, which is all about forking and sharing.
Did they comment on why it was deleted? I didn’t see anything in the article. I recall the consensus was that they made so many mistakes the only way to fix it was deletion of the repo.
I also saw in one of the comments of the Arstechnica article that the one who pushed for open-source wanted to clean up the code before publishing. Management said no, the entire team got fired/left, and suddenly the code got published with all that commercial stuff left in. Sounds about right.
Based on the article, this is a train wreck of cosmic proportions. My guess is, the CEO panicked and went into damage mitigation mode.
Sounds like they’re trying to put out a titanium fire using only a bucket of water. What could go wrong.
Sounds like they’re trying to put out a titanium fire using only a bucket of water.
I have a new phrase to use in the future.
Is this what whipping the llamas ass looks like?
ohhh nooooo, who could possibly have seen this coming
not like that repo wasn’t getting constantly vandalized as people realized it contained copyrighted code that the winamp owners didn’t have the rights to which the project managers were halfheartedly playing whack-a-mole with
Too late the code is out there … Forever
