If you need a quick Winamp fix -> https://webamp.org/
Millennials will see this and say “hell yeah”
Hell yeah!
I smashed that upvote button so hard. Whip that llamas ass
Ahh yes. Reminds me of my teenage years. Experimenting with Marijuana, pirated MP3s, and the Milkdrop visualization plugin for Winamp. Those were good times… Real good times.
Maaan, I had so many different skins for my Winamp player. Was such a great time to be on the internet. It was open and anonymous and had yet to be fully commercially exploited.
There was a setting (or plugin?) to use a random skin on startup.
You could actually set it to change skin on every song in playlist. Great feature if you were skin hoarder like me.
For anyone wanting to get a nostalgia hit: Winamp Skin Museum
Edit: Spelling
It really whips the llama’s ass.
It really whips the llama’s ass
Next can we get ICQ?
Uh oh!
OK, I’m confused.
I have seen 2 different articles that claim WinAmp is NOt going to be open sourced. At least in the common sense. But rather kind - of - sort - of - but - not - really.
Here is a https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/home-entertainment/winamp-is-not-going-open-source-heres-what-it-is-doing-and-why/ ZDNET article about it.
They are open sourcing, just keeping a proprietary license on it. Yes, it’s weird, but it is not unheard of. The Unreal game engine’s entire source code is open, anyone can read or submit changes to it. Even make changes and distribute said changes. But it’s still a proprietary product owned by Epic Games, and commercial use is strictly controlled under the licensing terms. Open doesn’t mean Free (as in beer), or Freedom (licensing). Those are three different things. It is just that people have associated the term open source with the entire Free and Open Source Software philosophy. But they aren’t the same thing.
ZDNET is wrong, Winamp is open sourcing their code. The article is obtuse and refuses to elaborate or provide reasons about their claim that Winamp isn’t open sourcing.
it cannot be open source with that level of corporate control
Why?
It not only can, we have several examples of corporate products that are open source precisely like this with this level of control.
Open source requiring a specific license is a decades old debate that continues to this day. We have like a million different licenses and people argue and bicker all the time about which ones are Truly Open source ™ and which ones aren’t. It’s all legalese that make most people have headaches. But there’s one crux on this whole thing: Open source does not preclude commercialization of software. This is why people are proposing the term source-available software. Winamp might go for that model and the debate would still go on.
There is a different term for that:source-available
Before finding MediaMonkey Winamp was all I used. I like sticking to things I understand well.
