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

  • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
    20·
    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
          15·
          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.

                • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                  4·
                  7 months ago

                  Inclusive umbrella term. It means the software has to be both free and open source. Open source does jot imply free and free does not imply open source. It requires the software to be both. Practically almost all open source apps are free and vice versa with few exceptions

                  • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
                    2·
                    7 months ago

                    Inclusive umbrella term. It means the software has to be both free and open source.

                    You are mistaken, but I won’t argue about it.

                • Dr. Jenkem@lemmy.blugatch.tubeEnglish
                  1·
                  7 months ago

                  I see, so what is the difference between the two?

                  I’ve been thinking of OSS and source available as interchangeable. But now it kind of seems to me that free software is interchangeable with open source software. Is it just a matter of branding?

                  • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
                    3·
                    7 months ago

                    I’ve been thinking of OSS and source available as interchangeable.

                    Nope; they are distinct terms. Source-available is just a general way of saying that the source code can be (legally) acquired. It doesn’t meet the standards of open-source software (OSS) or Free Software, both of which guarantee certain rights and freedoms, such as permission to make and redistribute changes to the source code.

                    https://opensource.org/osd

                    https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#fs-definition

                    It’s understandable that it might be confusing, though, since some people use the terms casually without understanding that they have specific meanings, and since both phrases use English words that could be interpreted to mean something else. (For example, “free software” doesn’t mean software whose price is zero, and “open-source software” doesn’t mean software whose source code is published in the open.)

                    Edit to add: Like many English words, the context in which they are used affects their meaning. The field of software is such a context.

                    But now it kind of seems to me that free software is interchangeable with open source software. Is it just a matter of branding?

                    The two overlap, but are not exactly the same. The umbrella term FOSS evolved to encompass both, because there is so much overlap between them that having such a term is often useful.

    • 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.