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.
n2burns
joined 2 years 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.
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.
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.
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".
Sure, but that's unlikely, given the wording. "Owner of the software" is fairly clear and trademark and software are very different.
IMHO, it sounds like it'll be "Source Available." Especially
Winamp will remain the owner of the software and will decide on the innovations made in the official version.
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.
I would say the pick one is more of "Liberal arts institution" and "rural Kansas".
In particular, it means you can’t easily pick up, use, and put down your phone and maintain charging.
I strongly disagree. While you can't "maintain charging", it's extremely easy to change from charging to using and back again. If you want to use your phone while charging, wireless charging doesn't make sense, but if you want to quickly use your phone (like sending a quick text), it's nicer than having a cable attached.
FTA:
Butker recently delivered the commencement address at Benedictine College, a liberal arts institution in Atchison, Kansas. This is the same college that once forced out gay basketball player Jallen Messersmith to remove a rainbow flag from his dorm room window.
It would seem that Butker felt right at home.
So unfortunately, it seems like this might be what the college was going for.
I don't think their unvaccinated status should play into whether charges are laid. I would argue if, as soon as symptoms appeared, the parents sought appropriate medical care, that's not manslaughter. On the other hand, if the parents delayed care, that's similar to other child-neglect/manslaughter cases we've seen, and they could be charged for their actions.
I don't like that we have anti-vax people in our society, but I support their right to choose. Their choices do come with some consequences (limits to job prospects, places they can go, etc.) but if we say not vaccinating your child alone is enough to trigger charges, that's very close to saying that choice is illegal.