I'll happily continue to use Audacious with a Winamp skin.
Well, given the very unorthodox nature of it as it is today, I don't know that Dr0 can legally open source it until he's finished replacing literally all legacy functions with new code, even if they wanted to. But I can understand your position.
Whether that's the case or not, I think it is secondary to the fact that he clearly says on the website that he definitely doesn't want it to go open source, for as long as he is working on it.
He defines that as wanting to be in control of the project so long as he has the passion to work on it solo. But it's somewhat implied that if he had to let it go, he may open source his work. I can understand that. DrO was one of the primary and most prolific Winamp plugin devs back in it's heyday as well. So if you ever used Winamp itself (closed source) you have already trusted his code on much more vulnerable OSes, imo.
I feel like he's earned the limited trust this requires.
What a shame that it isn't open source.
I'll happily continue to use Audacious with a Winamp skin.
Well, given the very unorthodox nature of it as it is today, I don't know that Dr0 can legally open source it until he's finished replacing literally all legacy functions with new code, even if they wanted to. But I can understand your position.
Whether that's the case or not, I think it is secondary to the fact that he clearly says on the website that he definitely doesn't want it to go open source, for as long as he is working on it.
He defines that as wanting to be in control of the project so long as he has the passion to work on it solo. But it's somewhat implied that if he had to let it go, he may open source his work. I can understand that. DrO was one of the primary and most prolific Winamp plugin devs back in it's heyday as well. So if you ever used Winamp itself (closed source) you have already trusted his code on much more vulnerable OSes, imo.
I feel like he's earned the limited trust this requires.