Yesterday, the Winamp source code, build tools, and associated libraries for the Windows app were published on GitHub, allowing anyone to provide bug fixes and new features to the iconic media player.
However, its license prohibits the distribution of modified software created through the release of this source code.
yes, that license is unfortunate… i am not a license expert, but “private use only” modifications is sad to me. i mean, the difference with the GPL is just that contribs need to be upstreamed, right? that seems like a better balance, if so?
the GPL does not require upstreaming. it would allow for anyone to redistribute Winamp with whatever modifications they like, provided they publish their source code under the GPL. the license Winamp is using is not even an open-source license since it explicitly forbids public redistribution. dumb move, they should have just used MIT or GPL and retained rights to the logo or something
thank you, good post. I was going to make a sassy comment about Winamp being “source-available” (derogatory) but it’s helpful to have you explain this instead, appreciate it. (I am a software dev, but I struggle with licenses etc.)
idk i would make a more intentional statement initially but im just so burnt out talking to CS lib dudes who feel it necessary to defend prohibitive licenses for thinly veiled “free market” arguments
Just make a repo containing only changes, no original source, with instructions anyone can use to create their own version with community changes applied?