WinAmp making their source code 'source available' instead of open source, and then dropping this phrase:
The release of the Winamp player's source code will enable developers from all over the world to actively participate in its evolution and improvement.
Yeah I don't think so
Yup, as much as I like Grayjay, I'm not going to help development much because it's "source available" instead of open source. There was an annoying bug I wanted fixed, and I was willing to go set up my dev environment and track it down, but they don't seem interested in contributions, so I won't make the effort.
Likewise for WinAmp. The main benefit to it being "source available" is that I can recompile it and researchers can look for bugs. That's it. They're not going to get developers interested.
Even if they accept patches, contributing still sounds like a bad deal. It's free labor for some company. FOSS at minimum means the right to fork, precisely what "source available" seeks to deny.
Leaving aside the question of winamp vs comparable programs, does anyone even care about desktop music players any more? I'm a throwback and use command line players, but I thought the cool kids these days use phones for stuff like that.
I understand there is some technical obstacle to porting Rockbox to Android, but idk what it is and haven't tried to look into it.
I look at 'source available' software as the right to review the code yourself to ensure there's no malicious behavior, not for community development.
You mean if you build it yourself? I guess that is something, but it is still conceivable to sneak stuff in. Look at that xzlib backdoor from a few weeks ago.
Is there any way to verify that the product in deployment is built from the same source? I'm guessing hash values but I still think it can be faked.
Yep. I will happily contribute to something with community ownership that I believe in. I will not, under any circumstances, provide free labor to a private entity.
It's simple. They want the free labor provided by the community with the ability to keep all of the profits they can potentially reap from said labor.
Oooooh they were just looking for free labor! Pass
What are some projects which have "source available"? Can someone get the source and upload or will it violate some NDA? And what kind of licence is associated with this?
Unreal Engine is a major example, you get access to a private repo containing the engine's source code but you're bound by an agreement regarding what you can do with it IIRC. Of course anyone is allowed to apply for access though
For example terraform changed their license to a non open-source license, and everyone hated it. Then a fork was created, which used the code before the license change which was still licensed under an open source license. The fork "OpenTOFU" is now 'owned' by the Linux Foundation
WinAmp making their source code 'source available' instead of open source, and then dropping this phrase:
Yeah I don't think so
Yup, as much as I like Grayjay, I'm not going to help development much because it's "source available" instead of open source. There was an annoying bug I wanted fixed, and I was willing to go set up my dev environment and track it down, but they don't seem interested in contributions, so I won't make the effort.
Likewise for WinAmp. The main benefit to it being "source available" is that I can recompile it and researchers can look for bugs. That's it. They're not going to get developers interested.
Even if they accept patches, contributing still sounds like a bad deal. It's free labor for some company. FOSS at minimum means the right to fork, precisely what "source available" seeks to deny.
Leaving aside the question of winamp vs comparable programs, does anyone even care about desktop music players any more? I'm a throwback and use command line players, but I thought the cool kids these days use phones for stuff like that.
I understand there is some technical obstacle to porting Rockbox to Android, but idk what it is and haven't tried to look into it.
I look at 'source available' software as the right to review the code yourself to ensure there's no malicious behavior, not for community development.
You mean if you build it yourself? I guess that is something, but it is still conceivable to sneak stuff in. Look at that xzlib backdoor from a few weeks ago.
Is there any way to verify that the product in deployment is built from the same source? I'm guessing hash values but I still think it can be faked.
Yep. I will happily contribute to something with community ownership that I believe in. I will not, under any circumstances, provide free labor to a private entity.
It's simple. They want the free labor provided by the community with the ability to keep all of the profits they can potentially reap from said labor.
Oooooh they were just looking for free labor! Pass
What are some projects which have "source available"? Can someone get the source and upload or will it violate some NDA? And what kind of licence is associated with this?
Unreal Engine is a major example, you get access to a private repo containing the engine's source code but you're bound by an agreement regarding what you can do with it IIRC. Of course anyone is allowed to apply for access though
For example terraform changed their license to a non open-source license, and everyone hated it. Then a fork was created, which used the code before the license change which was still licensed under an open source license. The fork "OpenTOFU" is now 'owned' by the Linux Foundation
https://opentofu.org/blog/opentofu-announces-fork-of-terraform/
Same for redis, there is also a fork called Valkey now, which is also 'owned' by the Linux Foundation:
https://redis.io/blog/redis-adopts-dual-source-available-licensing/
https://devops.com/valkey-is-rapidly-overtaking-redis/