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

fwygon,

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.

jay2,

They trip all over themselves just to seemingly not use the phrase “open source” huh?

qweertz,
@qweertz@programming.dev avatar

They probably just want to cut down dev costs by outsourcing to unpaid interns volunteers

Templa,

This is cool. I switched from Winamp to Foobar2000 at some point, I don’t really remember the reason.

petrescatraian,

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

vox, (edited )
@vox@sopuli.xyz avatar

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

petrescatraian, (edited )

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.

zurchpet,
@zurchpet@lemmy.ml avatar

If you need a quick Winamp fix -> https://webamp.org/

mondstern,
@mondstern@mastodon.green avatar

@UKFilmNerd

the dev is @The_DoctorO \o/

LordChaos82,

Not a programmer but does that mean we will finally see Winamp come to Linux?

embed_me,
@embed_me@programming.dev avatar

It really whips the penguins ass

Twig,
@Twig@sopuli.xyz avatar

XMMS, Beep, Audacious or whatever were always good enough.

skullgiver,
@skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl avatar

I mean, you can just run Winamp in Wine already.

Linux support will depend on how tightly integrated the application is with the Windows API. It may very well be easier to just keep running in Wine, maybe after patching out some Wine related bugs.

It also depends on the llicense. If they don’t license Winamp and just show off the code, nobody is actually allowed to do anything with it. The title of their announcement uses"source available" so I assume the license is quite restrictive.

mexicancartel,

Linuxamp

Cethin,

Maybe Linamp, Lamp, or Gamp would be better? Kamp for a KDE version if the name isn’t already used.

mexicancartel,

GNUamp

ArcticAmphibian,

GNU/LinuxAMP (two components of a system)

petrescatraian,

Glamp

01189998819991197253,
@01189998819991197253@infosec.pub avatar

Why would you winamp, when you can glamp?

Boom. Done. Let’s do it.

DmMacniel,

Lamp is already the name of s Webservice Stack (Linux, Apache Webserver, MySQL, PHP)

Turious,

I stopped paying any attention to them when they started talking about NFTs. This is cool news.

Radiant_sir_radiant,

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.

ChallengeApathy,

I switched to Strawberry from a lifetime of Winamp usage purely because I wanted an open source music player, so this is amazing news!

BarrierWithAshes,
BarrierWithAshes avatar

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.

AlexWIWA,

Assuming there’s no weird catch, this is amazing. I love winamp

MxM111,
MxM111 avatar

I still use Winamp 5.5 or something, before it became bloated. Still kicks the same ass. Llama’s

ramble81,

I stopped on 5.666 just because

OneCardboardBox,

Not sure if you’re able to edit the title, but this doesn’t look like FOSS, just open source.

UKFilmNerd,
@UKFilmNerd@feddit.uk avatar

Corrected. 👍

thejevans,
@thejevans@lemmy.ml avatar

There is nothing here saying it will be FOSS or open-source, just source-available.

ProgrammingSocks,

“This invites developers worldwide to contribute”

thejevans,
@thejevans@lemmy.ml avatar

You can contribute to things that don’t have open source licenses, it’s just probably a dumb idea.

ProgrammingSocks,

We’ll just have to wait and see what they mean I suppose

thejevans,
@thejevans@lemmy.ml avatar

sure, and while we wait, claiming that they are releasing it as open-source is speculation, so lets not do that.

ProgrammingSocks,

*FOSS

thejevans,
@thejevans@lemmy.ml avatar

nope, open-source. claiming that they are releasing under an open-source license is speculation. The only thing we can claim is source-available.

mox,

doesn’t look like FOSS, just open source.

Open-source software is FOSS by definition. Did you mean source-available?

OneCardboardBox,

Did you mean source-available?

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.

ollien,

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

www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html.en

mox, (edited )

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.

DrJenkem,
@DrJenkem@lemmy.blugatch.tube avatar

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:

Free and open-source software (FOSS) is software that is available under a license that grants the right to use, modify, and distribute the software, modified or not, to everyone free of charge. The public availability of the source code is, therefore, a necessary but not sufficient condition. FOSS is an inclusive umbrella term for free software and open-source software.

Source: …m.wikipedia.org/…/Free_and_open-source_software

mox,

Doesn’t FOSS refer to software this is both free and open source?

Not exclusively, no. It’s an umbrella term.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSS

DrJenkem, (edited )
@DrJenkem@lemmy.blugatch.tube avatar

You maybe replied before seeing my edit, but I actually quoted that article in the edit.

mox,

Indeed. I clicked reply before your edit. Here is the key part of the quote you selected:

FOSS is an inclusive umbrella term for free software and open-source software.

That means Free software qualifies and FOSS, and Open-Source software qualifies as FOSS. It’s a broader category, not a narrower one.

mexicancartel,

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

mox,

Inclusive umbrella term. It means the software has to be both free and open source.

You are mistaken, but I won’t argue about it.

mexicancartel,

FOSS is Free AND Open Source Software what tf?

DrJenkem,
@DrJenkem@lemmy.blugatch.tube avatar

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?

mox, (edited )

I’ve been thinking of OSS and source available as interchangeable.

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.

opensource.org/osd

www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#fs-definit…

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.

But now it kind of seems to me that free software is interchangeable with open source software. Is it just a matter of branding?

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.

Zaktor,

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.)

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.

mexicancartel,

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

Zaktor,

Ambiguous words with context-dependent meanings don’t make trying to define only one meaning as correct a useful and reasonable task to attempt for a small foundation. There are also notably synonyms for “free” that don’t have that issue.

mexicancartel,

FSF DO NOT try to define free as in freedom as only meaning of free. But in context of software, free software means Libre. That is the point. And of course in english free takes context dependent meaning,and software can be either type of free. So it should be rigorously defined.

Anyway I can’t find synonyms for theese two free in english, what are they?

Zaktor,

But in context of software, free software means Libre.

It doesn’t though. It’s an awkward attempt to define what words mean by a niche group that even those who value its goals don’t commonly adhere to. I’ve been writing software for two decades now. If a colleague comes up to me and asks “is that software free?” they’re probably talking about cost. You can’t define away common usage. Pick a word that means what you want it to mean or make up a new term.

We all know what FOSS means, because it’s a unique term (yes, despite F being Free). We also all generally understand what “open source” means, even if there’s some confusion with “source available”. But “free”. That’s a total failure and people trying to pretend FSF has any power to define the word in relation to software are just delusional.

Anyway I can’t find synonyms for theese two free in english, what are they?

www.thesaurus.com/browse/free

“Unrestricted” or “permissive” both look good to me. Or as above, just use a term unique to software like “open source” and then you can define it to exactly the meaning you want.

mexicancartel,

Unrestricted or permissive does not look good to me. Free software can have restrictive licensing, like GPL. It has restriction which makes free software always free. You really know there are so called “permissive” licenses which do not have this. The word free shows the importance of freedom in sodtware which other terms fails to address

Zaktor,

If you’re going to complain that the GPL isn’t unrestricted (true), then it’s just as much a complaint about it not being “free” (as in freedom). Just use “open source”. It’s its own thing that people understand and is free from definitional conflicts that it will assuredly lose.

That there are these dumb mnemonics for “free as in…” just demonstrates how muddled the supposedly defined term is. If you need to continually explain what you mean by “free”, then it’s a failure as a descriptor.

mexicancartel,

Hhuh? Open source is not free. Its entirely different ideology. You can’t call it open source. Also open source have this same issue that people perveive it as software with “source availiable”. Is that dumb mnemonics? I think not!

People cannot understand a “new” ideology from the name itself. Hence they have to define it and popularise it. Free takes meaning in context and they have to make context in terms of software as free as in freedom.

Zaktor,

“Free” vs. “open source” is a distinction without a practical difference. It’s not about what it is or what it does, it’s about vibes.

There’s no future step of “popularizing it”. They’ve been trying for 40 years and it’s been an abject failure. Another decade isn’t going to finally get it to stick, it’s just a dumb idea. It’s is a very up-their-own-asses grognard thing to just reject reality and keep demanding it happen. “Could it be that I am wrong? No, it must be everyone else who haven’t just done what I wanted them to do because I told them to.”

And yeah, “open source” and “source available” have some confusion, but that’s at least a battle that can be won, and in most cases if you call a source available software package (an actual package with license terms, not just every github project) “open source”, you’ll usually be right (source available and not open source is already a minority). Pointing to that like it justifies instead continuing the crusade for “free” isn’t even remotely comparing issues of similar difficulty.

Trying to jump in whenever someone calls costless software “free” with a “free as in beer”/“free as in speech” explanation or “no, that’s costless software, not free software” just makes FOSS look like an arcane and exclusionary movement for unpleasant nerds, like Richard Stallman.

avelino,
@avelino@clj.social avatar

deleted_by_author

    •
    avelino,
    @avelino@clj.social avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    Zaktor,

    I also think you’re an idiot for wasting your time with two contentless comments, so take that as a vote of confirmation.

    mox,

    The Free Software Foundation can make whatever definitions they want, but they don’t supersede regular English.

    www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/term of art

    Zaktor,

    The Free Software Foundation isn’t a broad industry body defining standard terms for general software development, and even if they were, a term of use doesn’t supersede regular English. People using “free software” to mean “without cost software” aren’t in any way wrong, unless maybe they’re actual members of the FSF.

    Aatube,

    god i hate words

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • foss@beehaw.org
  • DreamBathrooms
  • ngwrru68w68
  • tester
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • rosin
  • khanakhh
  • InstantRegret
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • Durango
  • kavyap
  • mdbf
  • tacticalgear
  • JUstTest
  • osvaldo12
  • normalnudes
  • cubers
  • cisconetworking
  • everett
  • GTA5RPClips
  • ethstaker
  • Leos
  • provamag3
  • anitta
  • modclub
  • megavids
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •