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
    82·
    7 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
        16·
        7 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
          22·
          7 months ago

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

          • n2burns@lemmy.ca
            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@lemmy.ca
                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@lemmy.ca
                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@lemmy.ca
                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.

          • henfredemars@infosec.pubEnglish
            1·
            7 months ago

            I’ve played open source games that assign ownership of the code to one person, but they operate like an open source project and anyone can use the source however they wish. It depends on how that owner chooses to license the code.

      • sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al
        9·
        7 months ago

        Yep, the press release says opening the source code. It also says they’re inviting developers to contribute.

        • n2burns@lemmy.ca
          14·
          7 months ago

          It also doesn’t include any wording that would indicate it’s FOSS. It doesn’t say anything about being able to fork, instead using phrases like, “participate in its development”, “allowing its users to contribute directly to improving the product”, and “will benefit from thousands of developers’ experience and creativity”.

        • LordChaos82@discuss.tchncs.de
          9·
          7 months ago

          When they say “inviting the developers to contribute”, it sounds to me that they are looking for developers to work on Winamp without having to pay them. The article is filled with strange wordings.

          • sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al
            2·
            7 months ago

            I’m assuming that they don’t have enough revenue to continue paying developers, so they’re trying to find free labour and this is the last gasp attempt to keep WinAmp alive.

  • Captain Beyond@linkage.ds8.zone
    51·
    7 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
      8·
      7 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.

      • terrrmus@beehaw.orgEnglish
        10·
        7 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.

  • Turious@leaf.danceEnglish
    30·
    7 months ago

    I stopped paying any attention to them when they started talking about NFTs. This is cool news.

    • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
      21·
      7 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
          4·
          7 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
            16·
            7 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
                  1·
                  7 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.

      • OneCardboardBox@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        1·
        7 months ago

        Did you mean source-available?

        I guess? Always thought there was some pedantic Stallman-esque argument for the differentiation between FOSS and OSS, independent of the Open Source vs Source Available distinction.

  • BarrierWithAshes@kbin.social
    17·
    7 months ago

    Very excited by this. Hopefully they go all the way and GPL it. There hasn’t been any mp3 player I’ve enjoyed using as much as Winamp.

  • sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al
    10·
    7 months ago

    I remember I used to use Winamp then Sonique then Foobar 2000 and that’s when I switched to Linux.

      • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
        1·
        7 months ago

        Unless it can support the plugins already there (which I doubt… mono doesn’t mean we can straight up run DLLs, right?), I’d have to hope it stumbles into an incredible ecosystem. Thanks for the find, I’ll be looking out for it. We finally might have one people’d be content using. Now I’m wondering if/when I finally get enough motivation to start making a coverflow or a lyrics-scroll plugin, should I develop for Amarok or Fooyin?

        We also used to have Guarapirangua and DeaDBeeF. G ran out of steam, and D decided to fuck over Russian-language users cuz “they country war so they people bad!”, angering many plugin developers besides making me morally uncontent with what future decisions they’d make.

        • const_void@lemmy.ml
          1·
          7 months ago

          should I develop for Amarok or Fooyin?

          Fooyin would be my bet. The development is much much more active than Amarok and is a ground up new program, not a codebase from decades ago.

  • MxM111@kbin.social
    9·
    7 months ago

    I still use Winamp 5.5 or something, before it became bloated. Still kicks the same ass. Llama’s

    • MisterD@lemmy.ca
      2·
      7 months ago

      With many people going from windows to Linux, they would have instantaneous users on nostalgia alone

  • Radiant_sir_radiant@beehaw.org
    7·
    7 months ago

    That screenshot alone brings back so, so many memories.

    Been with Winamp ever since my first 486DX all the way up to my first 4k screen when it became unusable due to size/scaling issues.

    I’m really keeping my fingers crossed for this one to succeed.

  • jay2@beehaw.orgEnglish
    4·
    7 months ago

    They trip all over themselves just to seemingly not use the phrase “open source” huh?