Winamp is going open source
I used this for years, from version 1.9 all the way to 5.x when I moved onto other software.
EDIT: Here is the full press release.
Press Release- Inside information May 16, 2024 – 08:30 CEST Winamp has announced that it is opening up its source code to enable collaborative development of its legendary player for Windows. Winamp has announced that on 24 September 2024, the application's source code will be open to developers worldwide. Winamp will open up its code for the player used on Windows, enabling the entire community to participate in its development. This is an invitation to global collaboration, where developers worldwide can contribute their expertise, ideas, and passion to help this iconic software evolve. Winamp has become much more than just a music player. It embodies a unique digital culture, aesthetic, and user experience. With this initiative to open the source code, Winamp is taking the next step in its history, allowing its users to contribute directly to improving the product. "This is a decision that will delight millions of users around the world. Our focus will be on new mobile players and other platforms. We will be releasing a new mobile player at the beginning of July. Still, we don't want to forget the tens of millions of users who use the software on Windows and will benefit from thousands of developers' experience and creativity. Winamp will remain the owner of the software and will decide on the innovations made in the official version," explains Alexandre Saboundjian, CEO of Winamp. Interested developers can now make themselves known at the following address: about.winamp.com/free-llama
The release doesn't say it's going FOSS. It doesn't specify, but it hints that it'll be "Source Available". Stuff like:
Could mean FOSS but they keep the trademark.
Sure, but that's unlikely, given the wording. "Owner of the software" is fairly clear and trademark and software are very different.
The open-source licenses that I've used don't require surrendering copyright.
The creator doesn't "surrender" their copyright, but someone can fork it and then have ownership of their version. "Winamp will remain the owner of the software" indicates you won't have ownership of a fork.
Again, it doesn't clearly state whether it will be "FOSS" or "Source Available", but if they were planning to go FOSS, you'd expect them to say something to make that clear. Leaving it vague seems like a strategy to get attention while not actually lying.
I was replying to this exchange:
The article's text said, "Winamp will remain the owner of the software". That does not, in fact, preclude giving it a FOSS license, nor does retaining a related trademark. GP was correct. They can make it FOSS and keep the trademark and copyright. I don't see any reason to think it unlikely.
Forking someone's copyrighted work does not change ownership of the rights in any jurisdiction that I know of. If you meant "ownership" in a difference sense, like maybe control over a derivative project's direction, then I think choosing a different word would have made your meaning more clear.
It's possible. However, at no point in the post does discuss that, so it's pretty wild speculation.
AFAIK, it doesn't "change" ownership, but it creates a new property with new ownership. That new ownership may be bound by he terms of the original license, but the original owner has no further control.
some contributor agreement does force people to surrender their copyright. MongoDB is probably the most infamous example.
They said “the official version”.
Indeed, but as I've been saying in other comments, that doesn't mean the license will be FOSS. The press release is vague, and I think that’s likely to be intentional ambiguity.
Note that it speaks of the "official version" in the next sentence, which seems to me like there will be inofficial versions which requires a more permissive license
But we'll see
It doesn't necessarily require a permissive license. For example, Winamp could be willing to license the code for non-official versions or for integration into other projects, but at a fee and with limitations set by Winamp. As I've said in other comments, the press release is vague, and I think that's likely to be intentional ambiguity.
I’ve played open source games that assign ownership of the code to one person, but they operate like an open source project and anyone can use the source however they wish. It depends on how that owner chooses to license the code.
Yep, the press release says opening the source code. It also says they're inviting developers to contribute.
It also doesn't include any wording that would indicate it's FOSS. It doesn't say anything about being able to fork, instead using phrases like, "participate in its development", "allowing its users to contribute directly to improving the product", and "will benefit from thousands of developers' experience and creativity".
Sounds like they are saying that Winamp wants developers they dont need to pay :D
When they say "inviting the developers to contribute", it sounds to me that they are looking for developers to work on Winamp without having to pay them. The article is filled with strange wordings.
Notice they avoid using the exact term "open source" in this press release. I'm ~90% sure it'll turn out to be under some proprietary source-available license.
I had the same though. No way they would choose that wording otherwise. they will probably just make it available, also make people who contribute sign their copyright away.
They've already talked about adding NFTs to it. Winamp is dead and this is it's corpse being paraded around like Weekend at Bernie's.
Winamp still whips the Llamas ass.
Came here just to say something similar.
"Going FOSS really whips the llamas ass!"
I stopped paying any attention to them when they started talking about NFTs. This is cool news.
They probably just want to cut down dev costs by outsourcing to
unpaid internsvolunteersNot sure if you're able to edit the title, but this doesn't look like FOSS, just open source.
Open-source software is FOSS by definition. Did you mean source-available?
If you ask the FSF, open source is a bigger set than free software, mostly to do with restrictions on the uses of the code
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html.en
And FOSS is an umbrella term encompassing both Free software and Open-Source software.
I'm glad to see people taking interest in the meanings behind these terms. We all benefit from understanding them better.
Doesn't FOSS refer to software this is both free and open source? Not a union of free software and open source software? My understanding is that if a piece of software is not both open and free then it is not FOSS.
EDIT:
From the wiki page:
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software
Not exclusively, no. It's an umbrella term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSS
You maybe replied before seeing my edit, but I actually quoted that article in the edit.
Indeed. I clicked reply before your edit. Here is the key part of the quote you selected:
That means Free software qualifies and FOSS, and Open-Source software qualifies as FOSS. It's a broader category, not a narrower one.
Inclusive umbrella term. It means the software has to be both free and open source. Open source does jot imply free and free does not imply open source. It requires the software to be both. Practically almost all open source apps are free and vice versa with few exceptions
You are mistaken, but I won't argue about it.
FOSS is Free AND Open Source Software what tf?
I see, so what is the difference between the two?
I've been thinking of OSS and source available as interchangeable. But now it kind of seems to me that free software is interchangeable with open source software. Is it just a matter of branding?
Nope; they are distinct terms. Source-available is just a general way of saying that the source code can be (legally) acquired. It doesn't meet the standards of open-source software (OSS) or Free Software, both of which guarantee certain rights and freedoms, such as permission to make and redistribute changes to the source code.
https://opensource.org/osd
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#fs-definition
It's understandable that it might be confusing, though, since some people use the terms casually without understanding that they have specific meanings, and since both phrases use English words that could be interpreted to mean something else. (For example, "free software" doesn't mean software whose price is zero, and "open-source software" doesn't mean software whose source code is published in the open.)
Edit to add: Like many English words, the context in which they are used affects their meaning. The field of software is such a context.
The two overlap, but are not exactly the same. The umbrella term FOSS evolved to encompass both, because there is so much overlap between them that having such a term is often useful.
The Free Software Foundation can make whatever definitions they want, but they don't supersede regular English. That's not a problem with "some people" being casual, it's a problem with a small entity trying to claim a common term. The confusion is entirely their fault.
What does a free country mean? One having no value of money? Its english's fault that two different words can have exact same spelling and pronounciation. Most other languages have distinct terms for the two "free"s
god i hate words
I guess? Always thought there was some pedantic Stallman-esque argument for the differentiation between FOSS and OSS, independent of the Open Source vs Source Available distinction.
Corrected. 👍
There is nothing here saying it will be FOSS or open-source, just source-available.
"This invites developers worldwide to contribute"
You can contribute to things that don't have open source licenses, it's just probably a dumb idea.
We'll just have to wait and see what they mean I suppose
sure, and while we wait, claiming that they are releasing it as open-source is speculation, so lets not do that.
*FOSS
nope, open-source. claiming that they are releasing under an open-source license is speculation. The only thing we can claim is source-available.
I remember I used to use Winamp then Sonique then Foobar 2000 and that's when I switched to Linux.
And now there's a foobar2000 on Linux
Unless it can support the plugins already there (which I doubt... mono doesn't mean we can straight up run DLLs, right?), I'd have to hope it stumbles into an incredible ecosystem. Thanks for the find, I'll be looking out for it. We finally might have one people'd be content using. Now I'm wondering if/when I finally get enough motivation to start making a coverflow or a lyrics-scroll plugin, should I develop for Amarok or Fooyin?
We also used to have Guarapirangua and DeaDBeeF. G ran out of steam, and D decided to fuck over Russian-language users cuz "they country war so they people bad!", angering many plugin developers besides making me morally uncontent with what future decisions they'd make.
Fooyin would be my bet. The development is much much more active than Amarok and is a ground up new program, not a codebase from decades ago.
Sounds familiar.
If you need a quick Winamp fix -> https://webamp.org/
I still use Winamp 5.5 or something, before it became bloated. Still kicks the same ass. Llama’s
I stopped on 5.666 just because
I’d love to see it ported to Linux and for Spotify to release a fork of it again.
With many people going from windows to Linux, they would have instantaneous users on nostalgia alone
They trip all over themselves just to seemingly not use the phrase "open source" huh?
Assuming there's no weird catch, this is amazing. I love winamp
Very excited by this. Hopefully they go all the way and GPL it. There hasn't been any mp3 player I've enjoyed using as much as Winamp.
@UKFilmNerd
the dev is @The_DoctorO \o/
Not a programmer but does that mean we will finally see Winamp come to Linux?
It really whips the penguins ass
XMMS, Beep, Audacious or whatever were always good enough.
Linuxamp
Maybe Linamp, Lamp, or Gamp would be better? Kamp for a KDE version if the name isn't already used.
GNUamp
GNU/LinuxAMP (two components of a system)
Glamp
Why would you winamp, when you can glamp?
Boom. Done. Let's do it.
Lamp is already the name of s Webservice Stack (Linux, Apache Webserver, MySQL, PHP)
Even a progression from "Closed Source" to "Source Available" is nice progress I think.
If we assume that the License is not restrictive we may be able to fork Winamp into a codebase that might actually be Fully Open Source Software and track changes of the upstream as we need.
This is cool. I switched from Winamp to Foobar2000 at some point, I don't really remember the reason.
That screenshot alone brings back so, so many memories.
Been with Winamp ever since my first 486DX all the way up to my first 4k screen when it became unusable due to size/scaling issues.
I'm really keeping my fingers crossed for this one to succeed.
Just tried the mobile version of Winamp looking for a better Android music player. The interface looks great tbh, but man, they got no support for wma files and some of the tags are not read correctly (on the songs I own). I know this is not an issue for most of the people, but for me, it's really limiting on the music players I can use on my phone. Sadly, Winamp doesn't fit in this category either. Thank god there is Foobar that supports all these from day 1
try Poweramp, it's paid but it costs like 10 cents and comes with a 3 day trial (no subscriptions or other bs)
definitely the most feature packed player with no competition
Thanks! I'll check it out. Foobar is fine and does a lot of things that I do not see other players doing. What I didn't like was the fact that it has no adaptive icon and there is no way to display the lyrics of a song. Plus that I was looking for something that was following the material design guidelines more.
Edit: just checked it. Seems like it's not properly reading some artist tags, so it cannot find them:
i.postimg.cc/Y249YqV3/Screensh…
Plus, in Foobar, a split album is displayed in both artist's views. Poweramp simply creates a different artist entry, just for the split:
i.postimg.cc/66DQ0xxN/Screensh…
I did not check how an album with multiple discs is displayed, but I still find Foobar's library management capabilities unlike any other's.
I do have to admit that Poweramp has a cool interface though.
Cool. Maybe someone will finally add a mix/random option to the playlist.