WCL Version 1.0.1 still forbids community development.

[Aerocatia]

The recent license change does allow creating a github fork, but still does not allow anyone to do anything with it.

The restriction No Distribution of Modified Versions: You may not distribute modified versions of the software, whether in source or binary form. would be broken by committing anything to github, as having the repo on your own account with your own commits would constitute hosting modified source code, which this restriction clearly forbids.

This means any pull request made by 3rd parties would break this license as it is written.

You have to properly consider what you want and don't want to happen with the winamp source code, and whether the current licensing reflects that. Do you not want competing forks? If so then for what reason? It seems this is the case, however the restrictions you have placed on the software forbids changing anything at all, which seems to be in contrast of the purpose of this source release.

If the main concern people releasing unofficial builds of Winamp then perhaps it would be better to follow what Mozilla does and forbid the use of Winamp branding and logos in 3rd party builds, but otherwise have the source code be properly open.

If this is too far, then restricting 3rd party binaries can continue be done, but this is not "copyleft" as the license claims. Either way, if you do not drop the clause that states modified source code can not be hosted, then no one can do anything without breaking the license.

As it stands it seems to be something that intends to be selectively enforced, where you will obviously not go after anyone that hosts modified source intended to contribute back changes, but could go after anyone for any unknown reason. This is not a welcoming situation for encouraging community development.

Please consider just switching to an established license that is truly copyleft like the GPL.

[tedivm]

This is what happens when amateurs write software licenses. Someone needs to hire a lawyer (or, if a lawyer was involved with this, hire a better one).

[acflint]

This is what happens when amateurs write software licenses. Someone needs to hire a lawyer (or, if a lawyer was involved with this, hire a better one).

Maybe they used ChatGPT to write it 😂

[rudism]

If the idea is to accept contributions through non-standard methods (since the restriction on modified code distribution effectively forbids the typical fork-branch-PR workflow), then maybe GitHub isn't the best place to host it. Instead a static read-only copy of the source code could be provided as a download, along with a form or email address for contributors to privately submit patch files.

[tdcook]

If the idea is to accept contributions through non-standard methods (since the restriction on modified code distribution effectively forbids the typical fork-branch-PR workflow), then maybe GitHub isn't the best place to host it. Instead a static read-only copy of the source code could be provided as a download, along with a form or email address for contributors to privately submit patch files.

I would suggest to the Winamp developers to use Fossil, which is designed with this "cathedral"-style development model in mind. See sections 3.3 and 3.4 of Fossil Versus Git.

[filippocastelli]

You're supposed to submit a PR by making a phone call to them and explaining line by line what you've changed.

[PythonTryHard]

This is what happens when amateurs write software licenses. Someone needs to hire a lawyer (or, if a lawyer was involved with this, hire a better one).

Maybe they used ChatGPT to write it 😂

@acflint ChatGPT wrote better legalese than Winamp's mess of a license

[Aerocatia]

With the claims of GPLv2, LGPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 code being in this codebase, the best way to solve this would be to re-license under GPLv2 and carry on with the current codebase. Otherwise offending parts need to be re-written, and such re-written code can not be derived from the GPL code.

I think there was a long running misunderstanding of the LGPL here, While LGPL allows proprietary programs to link against these libraries, it does not allow you to directly copy the source code into a proprietary codebase and retain proprietary licensing.

[filippocastelli]

offending parts need to be re-written, and such re-written code can not be derived from the GPL code.

Guess Winamp's maintainers expect you to rewrite offline all the GPL infringing parts and forward the changes by email (no redistributing source code) .