Given how long this has gone on now, it’d probably be best to inform your community that you’ll be removing BLOBs from the source and for them to be produced during build otherwise this shadow is going to remain.
Many of the BLOBs are essential to allow Ventoy to work with Secure Boot. They are compiled and signed by Fedora and OpenSUSE. They definitely need to be better documented, but they aren’t reproduceable for good reason.
I too wish the developer would respond, but I don’t think this is the catastrophe people are making it out to be. One comment seems to explain why these binaries are included:
Because ventoy supports shim, and by extension secure boot, these files needs to come from a signed Linux distro. In this case they are taken from Fedora releases, and OpenSUSE apparently, as they publish shim binaries and grub binaries signed by their certificate.
On that note, considering the original engines are similar I wonder if OpenRCT2 and OpenLoco have any big similarities in the code base as well…
Probably! From the About OpenLoco page:
The OpenLoco project started in early 2018 by the same group of people behind OpenRCT2.
So, if you don’t have an Apple/Android device (and the app installed), you just can’t use web-banking? That’s pretty crazy!
I think I’d still prefer to use a 3rd-Party TOTP app but at least Steam’s app adds some value by pushing a notification when you login.
I suspect from that wording, “unofficial versions” will probably be licenced code.
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.
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.
What does this have to do with FOSS?
No, your post says
Do you think that 3 times a year is enough (for example, once in January, once in June, and another one in December)
I assume this is just an error and you didn’t mean consecutive months!
I think 3 times a year would be good, but I’d prefer if it was every 4 months instead of after 5 months, then 6 months, then 1 month ;)
Thanks for all your work!
Great, let’s inject more capitalism!
There was a few months where Wikipedia was reverted to a very old version as newer versions didn’t meet their build standards. That has since been fixed.