The Winamp Situation Is Crazy

Summary

The video discusses the chaotic state of the recently released Winamp source code on GitHub. Despite promises to make it open source, the project has been mishandled by its new owners, who lack understanding of software licensing and repository management. The license is restrictive, preventing distribution and forking, contradicting the principles of open-source software. Additionally, the repo contains unlicensed code, troll issues, and even expired security certificates. The creator critiques the current management, predicting further mishaps, while contrasting it with projects like WACUP, led by developers familiar with Winamp’s original code.

Takeaways

• 🕹️ **Flappy Bird Comparison**: The speaker references how 'Flappy Bird' reappeared with microtransactions and Web3 elements after the original developer lost the trademark, drawing a parallel to the current state of Winamp.
• 💾 **Winamp Ownership**: The people who own Winamp today are not the original developers. There was an announcement in May that Winamp's source code would be released, and it happened on September 24th.
• 🤯 **Repo Mess**: The released Winamp source code repository is described as a mess, with many issues, including poor understanding of the codebase by the new owners.
• 📜 **Custom License Issues**: Winamp's source code is under a custom 'Winamp Collaborative License (WCL)', which is presented as copyleft but contradicts the principles of copyleft by restricting modification and distribution.
• ⚖️ **Contradictory License**: The license claims to ensure freedom to use and modify the software but forbids distribution of modified versions, contradicting the spirit of copyleft licenses.
• 🔑 **Copyrighted Code**: The repo contains copyrighted code from Dolby and Shoutcast, potentially exposing Winamp to legal issues due to the inclusion of confidential and copyrighted material.
• 🔐 **Expired Certificates**: The repo also leaked certificates that expired in June, narrowly avoiding a bigger security issue where others could have signed things as if from Winamp.
• 👨‍💻 **Amateur Git Use**: The repo history indicates a poor understanding of Git, with improper handling of sensitive data, like certificates, and leaving traces of what was removed.
• 📂 **Non-Essential Tools**: The repo includes unnecessary tools like 7zip and Git executables, which aren't relevant to building Winamp, showing further mismanagement.
• 🧑‍🔧 **Not Open Source**: Despite the claim, Winamp is not truly open source, as the license blocks forking and modifications, making it impossible for collaboration in the typical GitHub open-source manner.

Q & A

What happened to the original Winamp development team?

The current owners of Winamp are not the same people who originally developed the software. The original team no longer has control over the project.

What did the new Winamp owners promise in May?

They promised to release the source code of Winamp on September 24th, and they kept this promise by making a GitHub repository available.

What are some issues with the Winamp source code repository?

The repository is a mess, containing copyrighted code (like from Dolby), expired certificates, unnecessary files, and improper handling of GitHub commits.

What is problematic about the license used for the Winamp source code?

The license, called the Winamp Collaborative License (WCL), claims to be copyleft but restricts distribution and modification, which contradicts the core principles of copyleft.

Why is the restriction on forking in the license controversial?

GitHub's terms of service require public repositories to allow forking, but the Winamp license blocks forking, which makes collaboration difficult and violates GitHub's terms.

What was the issue with Dolby code in the repository?

The repository contains copyrighted Dolby code, which the new developers do not have the rights to distribute, potentially leading to legal issues.

What other intellectual property issues are present in the repository?

In addition to Dolby's code, the repository contains source code for Shoutcast DNAs, another project that may not be authorized for distribution.

Why was the presence of expired certificates in the repository a concern?

Even though the certificates are expired, if they were still valid, anyone could use them to sign code and make it appear as if it came officially from Winamp.

How has the management of the GitHub repository been described?

The repository is being managed by someone with a rudimentary understanding of Git and GitHub, with many changes made publicly and improper handling of sensitive code and commits.

Is the current Winamp source code truly open source?

No, despite some claims, the Winamp source code is not open source. It is source-available but with severe restrictions on modifications and distribution, making it far from an open-source project.