Please keep the trademarks but make the source truly free and open

[TraxXavier]

Let's be honest: the valuable thing about Winamp is the trademark, not the source code.

After decades of using Winamp, I think it's safe to say that what many of us truly cherish is the iconic user interface, the lightweight design, and of course, the nostalgia attached to the name "Winamp." While the source code itself holds technical value, it’s hard to argue that it’s indispensable in today’s software ecosystem. For many users—myself included—Winamp’s core functionality could easily be replicated by plugging VLC into a sleek new frontend and calling it a day.

Despite having used Winamp for over a quarter of a century, my main interaction is simple: I drag my files into the playlist, hit play, and let the music flow. Sure, Winamp has always had advanced features, but I can’t say I’ve ever truly relied on them for more than satisfying a fleeting curiosity. For the average user, Winamp's charm is not rooted in its deep technical capabilities but in its ease of use, efficiency, and memorable UI. If we’re honest, most of those advanced features could be replicated with a modern media player backend like VLC.

The true value lies in the name "Winamp," not in any specific feature of the code.

The current license, with its restrictions, antagonizes large portions of the Free and Open Source Software (FLOSS) community. If the goal is to revitalize Winamp by getting the community to improve and evolve the software, this license feels like a self-imposed barrier. There are countless open-source projects that thrive because developers and users alike have the freedom to modify, adapt, and contribute under truly open terms. By restricting the distribution of modified versions, you're discouraging the very people who could help propel Winamp into a new era.

To the rights holders of Winamp: I urge you to reflect on this. How much competition could a fork realistically pose if it couldn’t use the name "Winamp"? The name is what most people care about—the name carries the legacy. Look at Firefox: despite numerous forks (like Pale Moon), the vast majority of users stick to the official version. Why? Because the name and the brand carry the trust, recognition, and nostalgia that users crave. A Winamp fork without the brand would hardly attract attention, but with an open-source license, the project itself could thrive on community contributions.

Instead of fearing competition from forks, you should embrace the collaborative power of the FLOSS community. By opening the source more fully—while still protecting the Winamp brand—you’d be giving developers the freedom to contribute in meaningful ways while ensuring the project remains unified under the name we all love. This would allow the Winamp legacy to grow, rather than being locked into a narrow development path controlled by a few.

Winamp has the potential to live on, not just as a piece of software, but as a symbol of innovation and nostalgia, combining the best of the old with the potential of the new. Embrace the openness that has driven so many other projects to success, and let the community help Winamp evolve. The trademark will always be yours, but the code deserves the freedom to grow.

PS: I’ve given it more thought, and there’s even more you could do to protect both your users and revenue streams while embracing a fully open-source model. You could leverage plugins to retain control over certain commercial functionalities—like NFTs, premium features, or proprietary integrations—without needing to open-source everything. By implementing these features as plugins, which wouldn’t need to be open-source, you could ensure full control over the parts of Winamp that matter most to your business.

For example, if you release Winamp under the GPL v3, you would still be the only entity legally allowed to distribute binaries with closed-source plugins or components. This puts you in a unique position of control within the ecosystem. While the core of Winamp would be free and open-source, you’d maintain exclusive rights to distribute closed-source extensions that offer premium or commercial functionality.

Meanwhile, any forks of Winamp would be bound by GPL v3 requirements, meaning that they could only distribute plugins or components that are compatible with the same license. This ensures that the community can innovate and improve the open parts of Winamp, while your business remains protected through the control of closed-source, proprietary plugins that add extra value for users.

By taking this approach, you can achieve the best of both worlds: fostering a thriving open-source community while keeping key commercial opportunities intact.

[jakubtalich]

I no longer care. I have spend over 24 hrs on this idiotic project now. The devs close issues without any feedback. What do they expect? To shut people up? What did this create? Did you see the number of issues this morning. Mummery! License update - haha - more mummery.

[Arniiiii]

Let's be honest: the valuable thing about Winamp is the trademark, not the source code.

Nope, it's ecosystem that was done by people.

Instead of fearing competition from forks, you should embrace the collaborative power of the FLOSS community.

They want get a profit from it:

This new code will be only for Windows versions. The Mac, Android, and iOS editions will continue to be entirely proprietary.

But they failed getting FOSS community involved:

Why would I contribute?

OK, you want to be able to make money, I want features to be added like ability to build and run this on a Linux and at least not leak memory.

If guys behind Winamp didn't like my contributions, I would like at least to be able to create a fork with my changes and maybe continue maintaining it.

But no, they completely failed. Good luck, Winamp, you have killed yourself.

[giantplaceholder]

It is at least technically debatable what their true intentions behind this release were (my bet is on free maintenance for a dead project without a dev team, of course).

However, judging by their masterful handling of Git while removing the leaked Shoutcast code and private keys used to sign releases (sarcasm), it seems that even if they wanted to do the release properly, they lack the skills and knowledge to do so.

[TraxXavier]

It is at least technically debatable as to what their true intentions behind this release were (my bet is on free maintenance for a dead project without a dev team of course).

Perhaps, but given they see the light and change the license to GPL v3 or something even more open, they can have free maintenance, just not under the current conditions.

[giantplaceholder]

It is at least technically debatable as to what their true intentions behind this release were (my bet is on free maintenance for a dead project without a dev team of course).

Perhaps, but given they see the light and change the license to GPL v3 or something even more open, they can have free maintenance, just not under the current conditions.

It's a bit of a rhetorical question, but have any of the post-AOL era owners of Winamp ever "seen the light" or done something good for the community?

[TraxXavier]

It is at least technically debatable as to what their true intentions behind this release were (my bet is on free maintenance for a dead project without a dev team of course).

Perhaps, but given they see the light and change the license to GPL v3 or something even more open, they can have free maintenance, just not under the current conditions.

It's a bit of a rhetorical question, but have any of the post-AOL era owners of Winamp ever "seen the light" or done something good for the community?

Well the current once come closer to it than any post-AOL era owner before, so there is hope, I mean the source is already public, it just need one license file being updated accordingly and voila, FREEDOM!!!!

Give them time to think about it they may surprise you, in a good way that is.

[0x5066]

The only valuable thing about the entire source code is the Modern Skin integration that can be found in the gen_ff and Wasabi folders, unfortunately since the license is as restrictive as it is, it doesn't allow others to make use of it (i.e. WACUP and/or anyone else interested in updating the Modern Skin engine to be more update and less crashy)

[cobrien666]

If guys behind Winamp didn't like my contributions, I would like at least to be able to create a fork with my changes and maybe continue maintaining it.

Create your own local repo detached from Github and maintain your fork there. Sure, you're prohibited from distributing it but there's nothing in the license (yet) that says you can't run it on your own machine.

[0x5066]

Don't give 'em ideas!