"WINAMP" Reminds Us That Choosing GitHub is Sign of Failing to Understand or Not Intending to Respect Freedom (Usually a Platform for Lousy Openwashing Stunts)
Microsoft loves to use GitHub, which is proprietary, as an example of being "open"; not only Microsoft does this
LIKE many people of my generation, who came from DOS and not from UNIX (the grown-ups' thing "for servers"), Windows 3.x (especially 3/3.11) was a "thing" to us and so was Windows 95, at least to some extent. I stopped using Windows after "98", but I kept using WINAMP (or WINAMP.EXE) for a while because it was (at the time) relatively lean and I had even made some skins for it. That was back in the 90s, i.e. the "pre-bloat" and pre-binge era. This was when people could get "on-line" at home, download some MP3s (not large WAV files from CDs), burn media, and use Sound Blaster, AdLib etc. No DRM, no "streaming" by default (rental basically), just practicality and ripping/sharing. People made their own CDs (collections).
A lot has changed since then. Nowadays Windows isn't the dominant platform (Android is, like it or hate it) and my main music player is Audacious, whose programmer is our former system administrator/webhost. Prior to that many like myself used XMMS (or similar). Many Free software "clones" of the 'original' WINAMP exist (all-caps "WINAMP" is intentional), but the original WINAMP is proprietary and obscure. Not many people use it anymore. And it's still non-free.
I personally find it rather astounding that GitHub, which is proprietary, has the audacity to lecture people and projects about becoming "open". Where can I fork GitHub? If it's feasible, right? Short of a system breach? Is it legal? Not just as per the licence? Some disgruntled workers who leaked the code were more likely to face arrest, not C&D letters.
Don't miss the irony of all this.
Projects that choose GitHub don't seem to know what they're doing. It's often the hallmark not just of incompetence but also semi-hearted commitment to freedom.
Enter WINAMP! Enter openwashing (we see this term a lot in the media; we coined it and someone added it to Wikipedia).
Speaking of openwashing, we've noticed (and responded to) Microsoft-funded 'analysts' and Microsoft-sponsored publishers (Linux Foundation pays them too) pushing some nonsense for Redmond. "The article from the other day, "Moving From Open Source to Proprietary Licenses? Reactions Showed Minor Impact" will need debunking / rebuttal," one associate said. We responded to the original. They're basically spreading lies again (for their sponsors) and we're meant to think it doesn't matter if something is free, non-free, or fake-free. We've left out all links; that's intentional.
This is all part of a trend. They devalue and dilute terms like "Open Source". It's discrediting "the brand". Then people stop caring.
Now, back to WINAMP. So, in short, it's proprietary. It has been proprietary since the 90s.
"The WinAmp announcement," an associate argues, "lies about the license being CopyLeft, due to restriction on distributing modified versions. Openwashing..."
Yes, this was brought up in IRC and discussed several times in recent days. We also amassed press articles about this controversy. "Winamp, despite the noise, has not "open sourced" their project," the associate adds. "There were already some items in [Daily] Links this week about Winamp licensing" (e.g. 1, 2, 3; first one is GPL violation).
They use an "anti-FOSS license," the associate says, pointing to the original (hosted by Microsoft's proprietary software). To quote points raised: "No Distribution of Modified Versions: You may not distribute modified versions of the software, whether in source or binary form."
The associate concludes, citing more criticism: "Perhaps the openwashing is a cheap marketing gimmick to get free clicks or is that too cynical and too generous about their skills?
One important lesson reaffirmed if not taught here is that projects or companies that favour GitHub, which is proprietary, either don't value or don't understand Free Software.
GitHub is a "cancer" - more so than WP Engine ever was.
Going back to the long history of WINAMP (Justin Frankel, Nullsoft, AOL etc.), the above is clearly not the work of Frankel; it's just a "dick move" by someone riding the brand and taking advantage of the geek nostalgia decades too later. This does not "kick the llama's ass", it's just a tasteless episode (another dark chapter) in the project's history. They could do it "right" by choosing a better platform and a proper licence. █