Let's make FLOSS out of Winamp! Petition to AOL.
Please, sign the petition.
Please excuse my ignorance but what is the benefit of making such an old piece of software FLOSS ?
Possibly a lot of people still use Winamp today but with things like VLC, Mediaplayer Classic and the huge variety of players available on Linux I never look back to Winamp for years. IMO Winamp has had its time when there was not a lot of competition but as many other tools of the days back then it is not really needed anymore unless it is for the "I have been using this for years" factor :)
Also I have my problems when I either need a twitter or Facebook account to sign something....
Just my 2 cents,
Holger
>Please excuse my ignorance but what is the benefit of making such an old piece of software FLOSS ?
1. Historical interest.
2. Education. I think, a lot of young programmers want to know how famous software works under hood.
>Also I have my problems when I either need a twitter or Facebook account to sign something....
You need ONLY address of e-mail.
Ah..thanks for clarification !
I was misleaded by the two big FB and Twitter Icons below the "button".
Anyway...I rarely see purpose in open-sourcing WinAmp. Those with interest in Mediaplayers can simply study the VLC sources.
This is a petition to either "keep it alive" or release the source code. It's not a petition to free Winamp; making it "open source" is just mentioned as one possible "solution" to the "problem" of Winamp being dead (and not even the preferred "solution", at that).
Just use VLC. There's no need for Winamp.
> There's no need for Winamp.
Indeed. All of the functionality is already included in other existing free programs so there's no need for the the free world to pay any attention to this campagin. Winamp is proprietary. Let it die, and rejoice in there being one less proprietary program in the world.
>making it "open source" is just mentioned as one possible "solution" to the "problem" of Winamp being dead (and not even the preferred "solution", at that).
Yes. But , I don't think AOL is going to support Winamp anymore, because this is unprofitable.
>Those with interest in Mediaplayers can simply study the VLC sources.
There is huge difference between SOME mediaplayer and a famous one. Somebody can think "Winamp(or other famous software) is just fantastic! I would like to know how it works! I don't care about VLC/mplayer/etc, I want to see code of Winamp only!! "
>Just use VLC.
No, thanks. I didn't like Winamp even in my Windowshood.
Are you writing that VLC is not famous?! Estimations based on direct downloads (which exceeded one billion in May 2012) indicate that there are between 100 and 150 millions users of VLC. That is at least what the association told the Hadopi.
According to Wikipedia: "As of June 22, 2000 Winamp surpassed 25 million registrants". I doubt it ever reached the current popularity of VLC.
>Are you writing that VLC is not famous?!
No, I'm not. But Winamp is symbol of his epoch. This is like the Prince of Persia or Windows 95.
I asked my brother (13 years old) if he knows what Winamp is. He said "no". Though to be fair, he hadn't heard of VLC, either, for some reason.
Same answers from my sister (who's 15).
I am really sorry, but I think almost everyone here never even heard of Winamp. However, most people heard of VLC ; My school uses it, I use it, thereis 150 millions of users, and in the days Winamp was popular, there were only 25 millions of users...
I am not going to help peoples to support "Open Source ancient proprietary software", since it would be encouraging also encouraging the use of MicroSoft Windows, and thus encouraging the use of proprietary softwares.
"I am not going to help peoples to support "Open Source ancient proprietary software", since it would be encouraging also encouraging the use of MicroSoft Windows, and thus encouraging the use of proprietary softwares."
Of course; everytime a proprietary program becomes free software this is encouraging the use of proprietary software... sorry, never heard such nonsense.
Maybe some of you forget that even the oldest proprietary program has *some* users, and so *some* people can be freed when the program becomes free.
If the program dies they might switch to another proprietary program.
It's good if a proprietary program is wiped out.
It's even better if we get a free program instead.
This petition emphasizes preventing Winamp from "dying", not freeing its source code. Making it "open source" is talked about as a secondary, "solution" to the "problem" in the event that AOL is unwilling to continue maintaining it as a proprietary program.
Signing this petition does not vote for free software. It votes for proprietary software.
>Making it "open source" is talked about as a secondary, "solution" to the "problem" in the event that AOL is unwilling to continue maintaining it as a proprietary program.
Yes. But I doubt AOL is going to support Winamp as a proprietary program anymore, because this is unprofitable. So, in fact there is the only option: Open Source
Indeed, but the petition makes it clear that freedom is not the motive, only continued support for the software, so I think signing it is a bad idea.
>but the petition makes it clear that freedom is not the motive
Yes. It is not an end in itself. It is means. Is this variant much worse?
>so I think signing it is a bad idea.
Why?
You're making a gamble without considering the consequences of losing. This is dangerous in any situation. If your gamble fails, not only will some people continue to use this old proprietary program, but this old proprietary program may even get more attention from the press.
I'm going to repeat: signing this petition does *not* say that you want Winamp to be free. It says that you want Winamp to keep support as a proprietary program, and that in the worst case you are willing to accept the *suboptimal* "solution" of making the code "open source".
This. Petition. Does. Not. Ask. For. Freedom.
It asks for Winamp to stay alive, and it prioritizes keeping Winamp proprietary.
That is why signing this petition is a bad... no, a *terrible* idea.
>This. Petition. Does. Not. Ask. For. Freedom.
"Our goal is to convince Nullsoft to release the Winamp source code and we will take it further | in an open-source way." Hmm.
Where do you read that? The *only* mention of "open source" in the petition is the following:
As a last resort if [keeping Winamp in it's current format] cannot be done please consider making the software open source.
onpon4 is right:
This. Petition. Does. Not. Ask. For. Freedom.
>Where do you read that?
On 30/11/13 00:01, name at domain wrote:
>
>> Where do you read that?
>
> http://imm.io/1l8fL
That is not the petition page.
Andrew.
>That is not the petition page.
Yes, I know, And this is really confusing.
I was responding to comments like from jxself:
"All of the functionality is already included in other existing free programs so there's no need for the the free world to pay any attention to this campagin."
Or yours:
"Just use VLC. There's no need for Winamp."
I disagree with this statements. If one should sign the petition or not is a different question;
but just saying "oh, we have enough free software" is extremly shortsighted.
Other people might have different needs / be used to the program.
Diversity is important.
I for one would love to see Winamp become free software. Then it can be ported to GNU/Linux!
I don't like this petition. Saying "if it cannot be kept alive in one form or another then its source code needs to be released to the public" implies that making the source code of a program available (the only ethical way of distributing a program) is akin to killing the program.
I'd be a little more compelled to sign the petition if it were for making Winamp free rather than making it "open source".
If the petition used the word free rather than "open source", more people outside of this community might stop and think about the meaning of the word free.
I originally supported the idea, until I read the petition and realised
that it said "keep Winamp alive OR go open source". I could only sign a
petition that said "go free software" (or maybe "go open source" if I
knew the open source license was also free).
Unlike other opinions here, I think petitioning for Winamp to go free is
a good idea, although it probably isn't a very significant contribution
to the community. Every contribution to our community should be welcomed.
In the meantime, let's encourage those Winamp users to use VLC, a
powerful, free media player which will never die as long as somebody is
interested in supporting it.
Andrew.
As many have already said, WinAmp just needs to die.
VLC triumphs. Even my wretched high school has VLC on every computer. It is popular software and respects people's freedom. Let them study _that_.
EDIT: Also, I believe XMMS (X Multi Media System) emulates many of the features of WinAmp. But, I was never a WinAmp user. The mole of freedom dug its way to me, through Ubuntu, when I was 11.
>WinAmp just needs to die.
Maybe. But how about history? Don't we need Winamp's source code just for history's sake?
audacious is basically winamp and can use winamp skins, however it would be useful for this project to be opensource. The one problem with this petition is it seems to imply: 1) Keep WinAmp alive! 2) If not alive make it opensource...
I would say Winamp should be opensourced with a free software license dead or alive. :D
Responding to several posts above...
Winamp doesn't need to be ported to GNU/Linux... It's basic functionalities are already made by other programs, like Audacious - which is a fork/evolution of XMMS, that was intended to do the same things as Winamp.
(I know this quite well, because I've moved from Winamp to XMMS, then to XMMS2 and BMP, and then to Audacious...)
Also, Winamp appeared at a time when music players were starting to appear and computers still had a limited processing power, to be used at the same time as a person would be doing other things. And, there are today better programs, that run on GNU/Linux, with more functionalities.
And, everyone notice the name: "Winamp"...
(from Wikipedia)
"The name Winamp (originally spelled WinAMP) was a portmanteau of 'Windows' and 'AMP'."
Who cares about a program made to run in such a horrible OS as Windows?
"Winamp is proprietary. Let it die, and rejoice in there being one less proprietary program in the world."
--- jxself
Great answer. :)
Or, after reading a bit about Winamp and its evolution... I guess it can, now, do more things than it did...
Nevertheless, being a Windows program, as I said: "Who cares?"
Let us promote creativity - while, at the same time, promoting freedom - in software, and stimulate the creation of new, and rethinked - and, above all, free - programs, instead.
There is a lineage XMMS -> BMP -> Audacious. XMMS2 is another beast (the internal design is completely different) the authors of XMMS wrote from scratch.
Maybe AOL could actually profit from it if it was free software or open source. Why would anyone want to pay for something that doesn't respect your freedom.
I am a member!
Someone needs a reality check I see.
Unless you expect anyone to start donating to AOL, which based on their reputation I find somewhat unlikely, the only way to make money on "free" software is for someone to pay you to write it. If it's already written, there's no realistic way to charge for it.
They could charge people to download it.
I'd want to be paid to download it!
I am a member!
And then one guy would pay for it, put on [insert torrent site or file hosting service here] and everybody else could get it there for free, all perfectly legal.
Sure, that could happen just as easily to a closed-source program but.. Well. Really now. How many free software projects do you know of that tries charging this way? Maybe I'm out of touch, but sure haven't heard of any.
"Sure, that could happen just as easily to a closed-source program but."
You're providing the best counter-argument yourself.
You see that there is no difference between free software and proprietary software when it comes to the point of "getting it somewhere else".
Or do you honestly believe the fact that it's illegal prevents anyone from loading a cracked photoshop version? Statistics on illegal sharing say something different.
I am a member!
Tsk tsk. Just pointing out that nobody seems to make money on free software that way. But lots of people make money on closed-source software in that way, that's just the plain facts.
As for Adobe, they make their money selling to businesses, schools, etc, I doubt they really care that much if some art students pirate photoshop. Good luck making a business pay for OpenOffice or Gimp.
AOL make a profit? Has AOL ever made a profit?
Your comment made me look it up. AOL has an interesting recent history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_Time_Warner#AOL_Time_Warner_merger
Winamp? This isn't 1998, so why should we care? GNU/Linux users have Totem and VLC while the non-free operating systems have either iTunes or WMP.