- cross-posted to:
- linux@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- linux@lemmy.ml
They really just tried to get free labour.
They wanted free labor but own the changes.
They could have gotten free labor if they used a standard license like GPL or even MIT.
But nope. They were greedy.
LOL. Those 3 weeks must have been really exciting at Llama Group. I can only imagine how the conversion went when the engineers tried to explain what FOSS means and the CEO understood none of it.
I don’t even understand why anyone cares about winamp anymore. Or how the company figured people should be happy to work for free on it without it being open source.
I don’t understand why anyone cares about winamp being updated, I still use winamp, have my music library locally and it does exactly what I need it to… play music. What are winamp even trying to do at this point, take over streaming?
Nostalgia.
I thought I read elsewhere there were some GPL 2 parts in there too, I guess not.
I tried to find a source for this more credible than “I remember reading it on Lemmy” but couldn’t, now that the repo is deleted nobody can confirm. Perhaps some forks still exist… 🤔
Perhaps some forks still exist…
No, that’s impossible, because they didn’t allow it 😭
According to the article they did allow it. They got rid of that clause in a license update, just didn’t allow you to modify your fork lol