While I wouldn’t mind it if it’s worth the time, I recently played around with Audacious with skins and found a skin that made it look exactly like winamp. I can’t move jt around in KDE Plasma 5 in Wayland, but it does work well in Enlightenment 0.26 on X11.
I’ve used so many other FOSS solutions to replace winamp at this point, and they’re all functionally the same. I remember liking the interface of Clementine at some point, but honestly I don’t think I have any loyalty to any specific music software anymore.
I wonder what the aim is. Trying to get relevant again? I haven’t used Winamp in many many years. I’m a Spotify / YouTube kind of guy now. I drank the koolaid. It’s a little late and things like VLC have a pretty solid offering now, without all gotchas that this will have (such as you apparently can’t call it Winamp and will have to sign away a sacrificial child to actually get the code)
VLC is a video player. While it of course can play audio files, it is not intended for managing a library of them like winamp. I do agree that they’ve missed the boat though. I still buy CD’s and actually have a digital library of music that I own. As such, I never stopped using winamp. But I don’t know a single other person in real life that doesn’t just use a streaming service for their music.
The main reason I like Winamp: Advance Visualization Studio. And skins. Bring back skins in applications. I don’t care if 99% are ugly and unusable. We don’t need jerks like Gnome team deciding what everything should look like.
I love the Cristal Disk Mark / Info applications for this. Some cool Japanese guy, going by hiyohiyo, develops them as free software. And he is not afraid to make editions decorated with presumably his favourite Anime girls
Agree, also I never encountered other software so flexible in user interface. Every feature can be placed with panels everywhere to your own liking. The whole app interface is like a canvas. Took me a while to get the hang of it but after that …
CLA gives them total ownership of the code (all contributors are surrendering their copyright), and allows them to change license at any point in time, including making it closed source.
If you’re contributing code to a project with CLA you’re not contributing to Open Source, you’re working for a company for free.
This is not “perfect is enemy of good” it would be if I was arguing about MIT vs GPL etc.
By signing CLA you’re surrendering copyright to the company and this allows them do do whatever they wish with your contribution, including switching back to closed source.
Hashicorp was able to change license of their products exactly thanks to CLA.
Yes, thanks for pointing it out. As long as it is some organization that can’t be bought it should be fine. I didn’t included that because it makes my response more confusing.
Essentially CLA gives the entire copyright to specific entity and that entity in case of FSF it likely could use it for fighting violations, while some startup likely intends to change license when their product gets more popular to cash out on it (for example what Hashicorp did recently before selling to IBM)
A CLA in itself is not necessarily bad, but it depends greatly of what the license is and what it says about future intentions.
There had been many instances of copyright folders using the CLA as a means to go proprietary so the community is understandably wary about it today.
If the current license is permanent and non-revokable like one of the well-known ones (GPL or MIT to name the most) then even if they change it later the code up to that point would remain under that license and can be forked freely.
The issue in that case is not losing the code, it’s that the copyright holder has a long term plan where they benefit from community help for a while then take the product close source to monetize it, which is regarded as a dick move.
IMO there are benefits to any project that uses a FOSS license even if temporarily if you can fork it afterwards. And let’s not forget that you can also fork it during.
Add comment