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

  • n2burns@lemmy.ca
    4·
    6 months ago

    The release doesn’t say it’s going FOSS. It doesn’t specify, but it hints that it’ll be “Source Available”. Stuff like:

    Winamp will remain the owner of the software and will decide on the innovations made in the official version.

      • n2burns@lemmy.ca
        0·
        6 months ago

        Sure, but that’s unlikely, given the wording. “Owner of the software” is fairly clear and trademark and software are very different.

        • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
          2·
          6 months ago

          The open-source licenses that I’ve used don’t require surrendering copyright.

          • n2burns@lemmy.ca
            0·
            6 months ago

            The open-source licenses that I’ve used don’t require surrendering copyright.

            The creator doesn’t “surrender” their copyright, but someone can fork it and then have ownership of their version. “Winamp will remain the owner of the software” indicates you won’t have ownership of a fork.

            Again, it doesn’t clearly state whether it will be “FOSS” or “Source Available”, but if they were planning to go FOSS, you’d expect them to say something to make that clear. Leaving it vague seems like a strategy to get attention while not actually lying.

            • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
              1·
              6 months ago

              I was replying to this exchange:

              Could mean FOSS but they keep the trademark.

              Sure, but that’s unlikely, given the wording. “Owner of the software” is fairly clear

              The article’s text said, “Winamp will remain the owner of the software”. That does not, in fact, preclude giving it a FOSS license, nor does retaining a related trademark. GP was correct. They can make it FOSS and keep the trademark and copyright. I don’t see any reason to think it unlikely.

              The creator doesn’t “surrender” their copyright, but someone can fork it and then have ownership of their version

              Forking someone’s copyrighted work does not change ownership of the rights in any jurisdiction that I know of. If you meant “ownership” in a difference sense, like maybe control over a derivative project’s direction, then I think choosing a different word would have made your meaning more clear.

  • Captain Beyond@linkage.ds8.zone
    2·
    6 months ago

    Notice they avoid using the exact term “open source” in this press release. I’m ~90% sure it’ll turn out to be under some proprietary source-available license.

    • sanzky@beehaw.org
      0·
      6 months ago

      I had the same though. No way they would choose that wording otherwise. they will probably just make it available, also make people who contribute sign their copyright away.

      • termus@beehaw.orgEnglish
        1·
        6 months ago

        They’ve already talked about adding NFTs to it. Winamp is dead and this is it’s corpse being paraded around like Weekend at Bernie’s.

  • Melody Fwygon@beehaw.org
    2·
    6 months ago

    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.

  • cashmaggot@piefed.socialEnglish
    1·
    4 months ago

    I didn’t know this was still around, but sounds super good and super cool and tons of people will get in on this. For sure.

    • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
      0·
      6 months ago

      doesn’t look like FOSS, just open source.

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

        • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
          0·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • Dr. Jenkem@lemmy.blugatch.tubeEnglish
            0·
            6 months ago

            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: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software

                • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
                  0·
                  6 months ago

                  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.