• ace_garp@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    4 months ago

    If you want a FOSS player that can use Winamp skins, it exists.

    Audacious is an open-source audio-player, that can display these 98,000 .wsz Winamp Classic skins, today.

  • jonasw@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    1·
    4 months ago

    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

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      0·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • solrize@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        4 months ago

        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.

  • bulwark@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    4 months ago

    And now I’m curious how Winamp actually makes money.

    **Edit

    Just went to the website, it’s a subscription Spotify knock off now. Still doesn’t explain who are the people that actually pay for this.

  • buddascrayon@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    4 months ago

    It’s a little bit sad to me that Winamp collapsed just a year or two before smart phones really took off because it’s interface and customizability were pretty well suited to the app format of smart phones. And now that the code and design are owned by a company that’s being run by greedy morons there is likely never going to be anything resembling the original available for the phone app market.

    I just use VLC on my phone these days. It works, no bullshit ads, and no glitches.

  • dinckel@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    4 months ago

    Even outside of this obviously either clueless or AI-fabricated post, I’m still not convinced that it’ll be OSS, in the way that we expect it to be. The phrasing used in announcement leads me to believing that they’ll use some license, that allows them draconian control over the source. It’ll be “open” as in being able to see it, but not really fork, or meaningfully contribute.

    • Johanno@feddit.deEnglish
      01·
      4 months ago

      Reverse engineer it.

      Make an open source version that does the same.

      Ai now makes it possible, since ai generated content is not copyright able

  • solrize@lemmy.worldEnglish
    01·
    4 months ago

    Is it important? It was a cool program 30 years ago but it’s just a playback UI right?

  • Lojcs@lemm.eeEnglish
    01·
    4 months ago

    Why would they call the open version ‘openllama’? Isn’t llama that ai model?

    Edit: Thanks for the downvotes people, I’m sorry for not knowing a meme in a language that’s not my native from before I was born