this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
84 points (97.7% liked)
technology
23882 readers
244 users here now
On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.
Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020
- Ways to run Microsoft/Adobe and more on Linux
- The Ultimate FOSS Guide For Android
- Great libre software on Windows
- Hey you, the lib still using Chrome. Read this post!
Rules:
- 1. Obviously abide by the sitewide code of conduct. Bigotry will be met with an immediate ban
- 2. This community is about technology. Offtopic is permitted as long as it is kept in the comment sections
- 3. Although this is not /c/libre, FOSS related posting is tolerated, and even welcome in the case of effort posts
- 4. We believe technology should be liberating. As such, avoid promoting proprietary and/or bourgeois technology
- 5. Explanatory posts to correct the potential mistakes a comrade made in a post of their own are allowed, as long as they remain respectful
- 6. No crypto (Bitcoin, NFT, etc.) speculation, unless it is purely informative and not too cringe
- 7. Absolutely no tech bro shit. If you have a good opinion of Silicon Valley billionaires please manifest yourself so we can ban you.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
yes, that license is unfortunate... i am not a license expert, but "private use only" modifications is sad to me. i mean, the difference with the GPL is just that contribs need to be upstreamed, right? that seems like a better balance, if so?
the GPL does not require upstreaming. it would allow for anyone to redistribute Winamp with whatever modifications they like, provided they publish their source code under the GPL. the license Winamp is using is not even an open-source license since it explicitly forbids public redistribution. dumb move, they should have just used MIT or GPL and retained rights to the logo or something
thank you, good post. I was going to make a sassy comment about Winamp being "source-available" (derogatory) but it's helpful to have you explain this instead, appreciate it. (I am a software dev, but I struggle with licenses etc.)
idk i would make a more intentional statement initially but im just so burnt out talking to CS lib dudes who feel it necessary to defend prohibitive licenses for thinly veiled "free market" arguments
Just make a repo containing only changes, no original source, with instructions anyone can use to create their own version with community changes applied?