I'm making something that I want to use (essentially a compatible implementation for my plug-ins to run under) & if it's of use to others then that's a bonus.
At no point has WACUP claimed to be 100% OSS nor should I be expected to do that when I'm the only one working on my Winamp reimplementation. Aspects that need to be done that way are done so accordingly.
-dro
I trust Justin Frankel, I don't know you, previous team or not.. The world can go on using Winamp 2.x forever and be just fine, its GRAS. If you're bringing something that isn't that, previous dev history or not, you're going to have to differentiate yourself from the folks who are also putting out winamp-alikes.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, that's just the reality.
Knowing what the code I'm running is doing is helpful in swaying me to your direction, even if that's not what you claim to be aiming for.
> should I be expected to do that when I'm the only one working on my Winamp reimplementation
Let us know when you want to change that. We're talented, and generally nice. Maybe some day you'll want some help.
No one giving away software has to do anything. Maybe they'd get more donations as OSS or something, but it's no guarantee.
I'd assume that people who make general-purpose open-source software with the intent of it being used by someone other than themselves.
So read the "have to" as "if you want to have people use and appreciate your work, this is a necessary step".
The decision is left to the end user, use it, or don't.
Really don't see a problem here :)
It might make more sense for other projects especially those starting out fresh but that's not ever been my mindset with how I've been doing Winamp plug-in related development since 2003 along with the 5yrs I worked on Winamp & if that means people will avoid WACUP then so be it as they're more likely to be sticking with the AOL provided 2.x releases anyway.
Also it goes both ways on the trust aspects & maybe when the likes of fb2k, aimp & musicbee go OSS I might eventually reconsider my dinosaur like approach to development but there has to be a tangible benefit for me to do it.
I've already asked for help over the 5yrs or so I've been trying to make WACUP but the things that need help with doing are also the things that no one really wants to do (e.g. a new good midi input plug-in).
-dro (assuming this reply ever gets posted as I've been trying for over an hour)
Forgive me for asking, but if the reason for you releasing WACUP to the public at all isn't purely personal benefit (if it was only about that might as well keep it to yourself right?) but to help people and share something that you deem useful and let others benefit from it, why would the source code be any different? Put another way: why is releasing the binaries publicly acceptable even if it doesn't benefit you directly, but doing the same thing for the source itself isn't?
That way, if I get hit by a bus, it's fine, The Source Is Out There. If someone wants to send a bug fix or improvement, great, thanks, I'll be glad to take a look. Otherwise, don't bug me.
The idea that "open source" is necessarily a full-time maintenance job with formal processes and expectations is something somebody made up.
This is really cool, can you share a bit about how you do this? Are you using a makefile and putting a gzip as an embed into the setup? Is this a function of the installer you're using? Thanks for any insight.
In the case of one commercial application, there are also binary blobs in the form of DLLs that support custom hardware.
It's not one of those practices that scales particularly well, but it works for me...
:) Thanks