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
    12·
    7 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
      6·
      7 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.

      • n2burns
        2·
        7 months ago

        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.

        It’s possible. However, at no point in the post is that discussed, so it’s pretty wild speculation.

        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.

        AFAIK, it doesn’t “change” ownership, but it creates a new property with new ownership. That new ownership may be bound by he terms of the original license, but the original owner has no further control.

        • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          1·
          7 months ago

          Original owner cam have control with GPL, that is control that someone else does not make it proprietary. This relies on copyright. Many open licenses have attribution requirement, which means derivative works should credit whoever contributed to it. So it is indeed ownership but pte declared that anyone can use the code. They still have ownership but not the proprietary kind of ownership

    • rasensprenger@feddit.de
      3·
      7 months ago

      Note that it speaks of the “official version” in the next sentence, which seems to me like there will be inofficial versions which requires a more permissive license

      But we’ll see

      • n2burns
        2·
        7 months ago

        Note that it speaks of the “official version” in the next sentence, which seems to me like there will be inofficial versions which requires a more permissive license

        It doesn’t necessarily require a permissive license. For example, Winamp could be willing to license the code for non-official versions or for integration into other projects, but at a fee and with limitations set by Winamp. As I’ve said in other comments, the press release is vague, and I think that’s likely to be intentional ambiguity.

      • n2burns
        1·
        7 months ago

        Indeed, but as I’ve been saying in other comments, that doesn’t mean the license will be FOSS. The press release is vague, and I think that’s likely to be intentional ambiguity.

    • sanzky@beehaw.org
      1·
      7 months ago

      some contributor agreement does force people to surrender their copyright. MongoDB is probably the most infamous example.