Newly Open Sourced Winamp Forbids Forking, Already Forked Hundreds of Times

[@LokiScarletWasHere]

So, just proprietary source-available with the option to work for them for free.

[@taurniloronar1516]

That's the sum of it.

[@horusfalcon]

Yup. Pretty much.

[@SaltMineRanch]

That's the new 'open'

[@joshallen128]

​@@OhhCrapGuywait where

[@OhhCrapGuy]

@@joshallen128 look at issue 265 in the repo.

[@reatcas]

It should be called the "Work for free" license, it would be simpler as the only thing allowed would be specified and everything else prohibited

[@konnorj6442]

I see improved builds appearing shortly wo binaries so the asshats at winamp cannot easily take such for their own use for making money

[@ChristopherGray00]

it sounds like some old executive in the company had a friend who briefly explained to him the wonders of open source software and thought : "hmm...."

[@JPs-q1o]

Why do we need WinAMP? Hasn't there been a FLOSS project around for decades called XMMS which basically does everything WinAMP does?

"Work for us for free"

[@CtrlOptDel]

“Go fork yourself!” “Fork me yourself, you coward!”

[@LokiScarletWasHere]

They're violating FOSS *and* proprietary licenses in their repo. They have code lifted from all over the place just peppered in there without proper attribution. This is actually bad for Winamp as a whole, as it reveals they've been static linking things they didn't have the right to, without proper license attribution.

[@jlewwis1995]

Yeah they literally had the code for shoutcast and a proprietary dolby aac decoder called "vlb" in there, they also have "libdiscid" which is apparently LGPL but they removed the license file which isnt allowed under that license... They even have random old low bitrate mp3s in there dotted around 😂 This whole thing has been a complete disaster and it's been hilarious to watch

[@_unknown_guy]

WACUP is the answer, same developer that has done a lot of work on original Winamp. It's basically modernized clone. Initially used stuff from Winamp, but all those parts are rewritten now. Even x64 version is in beta. It's basically Winamp 5.6 modernized with all the features. Using it for years now.

[@그냥사람-e9f]

"We sure hope we're doing this right" The custom AI generated source available """copyleft""" license, GPL licensed libraries, Confidential Dolby code, Proprietary Shoutcase code, compressed archive containing commercial release of Qt, uncensored passwords and certificates in a build script, and group of people who have absolutely no clue how git works:

[@pcallycat9043]

If we can’t modify the source, we can certainly distribute patch sets :)

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

Yes, while source isn't really required for that, it certainly makes the process a lot more efficient and a lot less unpleasant.

[@pcallycat9043]

@@SmallSpoonBrigade I honestly don’t have a pony in the race, I loved Winamp back in the day, but I couldn’t even tell you what drive in my storage bin has my ripped cd’s in it these days. I just think they are silly for publishing source, claiming it’s open, then thinking they can prevent any changes they themselves approve and distribute. I was patching software when the kernel was still 2.0…back then it was a common practice to do it by hand and build it by hand.

[@LobotomyTC]

What are they going to do, stop me from porting WinAMP to the SEGA Dreamcast? lmao, good luck!

[@pcallycat9043]

@@LobotomyTC lol, just don't distribute the changed code (pretty sure you can distribute just the patches though?)... then let me know, would love to have it running on my dreamcast lol.. I might even buy lunch :)

[@powerfulaura5166]

In other words, _Winamp_ is still not 'open source' as per the OSI's OSD. This is not freedom/liberty-respecting software, it is merely source-available software i.e. public code w/ restrictive terms & conditions in its proprietary license.

[@rollinkendal8130]

If I can do what I want with it, then it is open source to me

[@SXZ-dev]

OSI's OSD does not define what open source is, it's a document from 2006 about a decade after the term open source became popular and merely a rebranding of Debian's earlier Free Software document and not something created from scratch. Open Source in it's spiritual origin has no connotations of freedom, those are concepts born from and exclusive to the FSF's definition of Free Software, to be open source you just need to provide viewable source code, that's all

[@Reichstaubenminister]

@@SXZ-dev Yes. There is a reason for the FSF specifically stating that their software is "free as in freedom" and not "open source".

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

OSI is kind of a joke in that respect, there's a bunch of restrictions beyond what are reasonably necessary. That being said, in this case, it's not really open source if it doesn't come with the ability to fork the software. Being able to see the code is only part of what open source is aobut.

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

@@Reichstaubenminister And, ironically, it's less free than BSD and MIT licensed software in that respect. But, either way, just being able to look at code isn't something that most people would consider to be open source.

[@kazwalker764]

Only 5 minutes in so far... The Winamp license isn't an open source license, so no Winamp didn't go open source.

[@AntiCookieMonster]

Source Available

[@SXZ-dev]

@@AntiCookieMonster There is no such thing as "source available" it's open source, it's just not free software

[@ImperiumLibertas]

​@SXZ-dev the word "open" is not synonymous with "available." Even in philosophy the term "open" has deeper meaning. Open meaning not the property of any group or individual.

[@J.erem.y]

@@ImperiumLibertas open means its mine now, fight me for it bro. All definitions boild down to that.

[@Jalae]

@@SXZ-dev you can think what you want. but "open source" has a specific meaning and this license ain't it chief.

[@muhdiversity7409]

There are 864 forks right now. I can't be bothered to join the party.

[@rnts08]

1.1k

[@deperditus]

Just need a patcher to inject the code into the application to get around this. Just like ReVanced and such are doing.

[@ChristopherGray00]

dont even need to do injection or anything fancy, just have a script that pulls from the official repo, merge with the difference in code, and build, then done.

[@opensourcedev22]

They have no idea what they're doing

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

That's a surprise? I think the last time they were actually relevant was when Wesly Willis was still alive.

[@fetch2385]

How do you open pull request without distributing modified source.

[@Arcidi225]

So... For example i could write my own code, and a script that "replaces" specific parts of winamp code with my own, and then this script just compiles it? So as long as i dont distribute the binaries, i am not breaking the license, but others could compile it using my script by themselves? Please somebody do it.

[@wil-fri]

Also check your local legislation 😅

[@russellchido]

Specifically restricts freedom three, the freedom to share modified versions! NOT free software! It's like the specifically sought to violate the free software definition while putting "free" and "copyleft" in the preamble. Unbelievable!

[@Topher_Knows]

There is nothing, I mean NOTHING more Y2K, than a Winamp skin.

[@nuvotion-live]

Bitmapped graphics was a golden era

[@neilpatrickhairless]

All these Winamp forks whooped Batman's ass

[@erics7004]

They want free employees, but they got forks instead.

[@epistemex10]

You cannot really make contributions without forking first, unless you want to work directly on the branch (which requires access.) You fork, make changes, then send off a pull request.

[@LokiScarletWasHere]

Bruh. I'll have to do a lot more digging than it's worth to confirm this, but I'm pretty sure they're violating other licenses by including the source of other things in the source of winamp without their respective licenses intact. Not gonna just drop filenames at this time because I could be wrong, but the code needs some major combing through to make sure they're not proprietizing other people's code.

[@marsovac]

The common and legal definitions of open don't match with the OSI definition. This is why we get these open source licenses. Legally they are open but they are not considered such by the open source community which uses a special, more extensive, definition of open, which is arguably confusing to the average joe.

[@joshallen128]

Museum source open to the public for viewing

[@JPs-q1o]

Why do we need WinAMP? Hasn't there been a FLOSS project around for decades called XMMS which basically does everything WinAMP does?

[@YarikTH]

Initial version of the repository contained copyrighted sources of Dolby Sweden AB. Now they are cleared from the branches of original repo, but lots of forks still have it

[@YarikTH]

KZbin hates links, but it can be easily found in closed issues with "Dolby"

[@MyAmazingUsername]

I just had to fork it now. I named mine WinLamp and changed a million lines of code.

[@rhone733]

Which animal's hind quarters does it smite?

[@MyAmazingUsername]

@@rhone733 I love lamp

[@gdclemo]

@@rhone733 the GNU

[@ultraprimez]

I use Poweramp music player that supports all kinds of IEM headphones and a lot more functions for excellent quality sound on my mobile phone. The default IEM parametric EQ is a gem and works flawlessly with FLAC codec audio file.

[@erinselectronics5748]

Pretty sure that regardless of what the winamp license says, by posting it to github, they also grant people license to fork, modify, and allow access to the fork on github.

[@nicholasfigueiredo3171]

One interesting thing is that if you have a license/contract with ambiguous and/or contradicting terms it is by default given the prefered interpretation to the part that didn't make the contract/license. That means that the code provided by that license is copyleft if you wish so allowing you to modify and distribute under the terms of the copyleft license.

[@chilversc]

I suspect by fork they meant in the traditional sense, such as how Ubuntu is a fork of Debian. GitHub and Git has added a second meaning to the term fork.

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

I'm not sure it's possible to draw that distinction in any sort of reliable way.

[@psybertao]

They were trying to have their cake and eat it too; socialising development while privatising profit.

[@evankooyer2882]

It feels like a AI license or a license written by an inexperienced lawyer

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

It's WinAmp, can they actually afford more than that?

[@DFsdf3443d]

One thing i noticed about their license is that it says contributors automatically give up their rights to their code upon submission, but as far as i know, legally, this isn't sufficient. As far as i know you have to have an explicit agreement like signing a CLA or putting an acknowledgement of transfer of copyright in the PR request. So i think technically if someone contributes something to the code it also limits how much they can do with it from that point on.

[@thomasetavard2031]

They want free work and for you to give up your rights to the code you produce.

[@kneekoo]

Forking is not forbidden. What they don't allow is the distribution of any kind of copies - either verbatim or modified, in either source or compiled form -, unless they come from the maintainers of the official repository. That said, I saved a copy of the source code because preserving software is cool. :)

[@konstisoel]

"No Distribution of Modified Versions: You may not distribute modified versions of the software, whether in source or binary form." So if i fork Winamp, change some code I am distributing a modified version of the software in source form, no?

[@kneekoo]

If lawyers argued about this, one could say that GitHub does the distribution, not the user, while the other could argue that despite GitHub doing the distribution, it's still a user's decision to fork and change the project, which means they are still be responsible. The actual problem here is the extremely poor understanding of software licensing of whoever pushed Winamp onto Github. Github clearly states that people cannot be denied to fork public projects. And since an online platform making source code accessible is a form of distribution, simply forking breaks the distribution restriction Winamp has. It doesn't matter the source code is untouched, it's forked (legally) in someone's account, therefore it's yet another avenue of distribution. 😆 They desperately need a license that makes sense.

[@tappy8741]

How can you fork without that fork being a verbatim copy in source form of winamp? You could private it I suppose, woopee.

[@kneekoo]

@@konstisoel By making a project public on Github, forks are possible according to Github rules. So any public fork would automatically enter in conflict with Winamp's restriction of distribution. That's one of the things they got extremely wrong, by not considering that verbatim copies (forks) cannot be forbidden on Github. They really have to fix their wording. Even in the case of a fork in a private repository, if we consider that multiple people can access it, that also conflicts Winamp's redistribution restriction. Their license is a mess made by someone inexperienced. 😆

[@sesanti]

Creating a fork and having it there for all to download could probably be considered as "distributing". And that's the problem.

[@dowdymike]

Can you build it? All the dependencies are nearly 15 years old and its been closer to 25 years since winamp has been a useful product. Forking this sounds cool but will you actually gent anything out of it compared to other music players?

[@awesomeferret]

I agree except for the goofy "it's been 25 years since winamp has been useful". Let's save strong language like that for software that DOESN'T work perfectly on the latest version of Windows, please. No software that arguably works better than it did when it was new can be talked about like that, even if it's fallen into niche categories.

They had ;-) two bullet points on Restrictions… but they actually only had on: you cannot distribute modified copies, only we can. That's one, not two.

[@shifureisaikyou2055]

Licences are written words unless you take legal acton, (which costs money). It's just that, written words.

[@daedalus547]

That's a silly way to look at anything, killing someone is just part of life unless you do something about it, see how far that escalated? If you don't respect the rules then where does it end?

[@RockyPixel]

​@@daedalus547wherever you want, really.

[@Arcidi225]

You wouldn't say that if somebody took gpl licensed code, changed&rebranded it as proprietary software.

[@muhdiversity7409]

Disney wants to know your location

[@shifureisaikyou2055]

@@muhdiversity7409 I'm sure they know

[@MarkGast]

When I think of media players WinAMP isn't even on my radar. I don't think I have used it since Windows XP was a thing.

[@nanopi]

The network tab of Forks has some really funny commit messages in them. "replace license with bee movie script" "remove everything replace with vlc" "Random number generator now spawns bee's"

[@dx9s]

For those that like the Winamp UI (look-n-feel and features), never heard of XMMS or QMMP ???

[@SenileOtaku]

No sir, I don't like it.

[@_unknown_guy]

Windows user should use WACUP which is continued Winamp project with all the proprietary parts rewritten, same UI with all the high DPI issues fixed. The Library feature alone is better than anything out there in other music players.

[@SXZ-dev]

They cannot forbid forking, as it's a violation of Github's own ToS, so yeah

[@craftkiller9627]

What?! You don't capitalize "f" in either meaning. Gratis vs libre is a much better way to differentiate them.

[@tetsuo3k]

I am having a wonderful time watching this play out. It's better than going to the movies, you can't pay for this kind of entertainment! I've seen a few projects go open source, and understandably they tend to start in a rough state, but nothing like this.

[@alexandrustefanmiron7723]

Winamp.. Winamp, it really whips the llama's ass!

[@robotron1236]

Streisand effect...

[@ivosarak959]

Basically they do not know what they want. As much I have read before the WinAmp brand and source code has been tossed around between different companies for years without any additional use for then current rights owners, but there was no development off it. The initial idea behind no forking nor distribution was likely to preserve to the WinAmp as a classical program and keep control on the source and resulting program to still direct any development to some vague/desired direction and still have an option to monetize it off to some product eventually.

[@katrinabryce]

This looks more like a source available license than an open source or free software license. I think you could distribute patches, and let people run those against the source code and build it. I take that approach for three different projects to get them to work on FreeBSD, but it works there because it is only about 3 lines of code that need to change for it to work, and it is easier to re-patch the upstream version every time a new release comes out than to integrate all the changes they make into my version. The reason many of us use Linux rather than Minix is because of this.

[@lcarsos]

So, they're allowing everyone and anyone access to create branches on the winamp repo, right? Since no one is allowed to make/maintain a fork, they'd have to. Otherwise they'd be in breach of their own "collaborative" license.

[@nikjs]

I used to use winamp in my teenage years upto college. Then, VLC came along. near-zero features compared to winamp, but hey it played all those exotic codec vids and ran just fine. and now i'm not even listening to music that much to care.

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

I have a few issues with VLC, but it's one of the media players that I regularly use. I just wish they wouldn't have features in that don't work, and don't seem to ever get fixed. The custom bookmarks feature still seems to be completely non-functional in terms of being able to save between plays, which makes it more or less completely pointless.

[@adamarzo559]

You could always fork the repo. Them saying something doesn't mean you can't do it when it's in direct violation of TOS.

[@cheako91155]

You must upload your changes to your fork/instance during the creation of a merge request.

[@anon_y_mousse]

Loads of entitled people in the comments. The fact that the source is available, period, at least in a case like this where that's all that's needed to build it, is good enough for preservation efforts. Anything you get over and above that is icing on the cake, but should not be expected. That fact that so many think they're entitled to all of the work product of others and that they should be free to turn it around and profit off of it too is kind of sickening.

[@EricLefebvrePhotography]

They included proprietary Dolby source code. They had source code for Shoutcast, the had a bunch of other issues in there. Their own license violates the ToS of GitHub ... this isn't being entitled, it's being flabergasted.

[@ralfbaechle]

They will find a few enthusiasts working on Winamp. But the terms are debatable. Does the prohibition of maintaining a fork mean one could not distribute a set of patches to be applied on top of the official Winamp repo? If not, one would probably violate the license by creating a local fork and submitting a patch to upstream ;-) It would not be the first project to commit suicide through unsuitable licensing terms. When going open source one of the most important changes necessary is the abandonment of an idea of absolute power and ownership. Rule by example instead.

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

They can't control people writing a set of patches to run on top of their code. Even Nintendo can't stop people from making and trading binary patches of their games. I doubt that WinAmp even has hat many attorneys.

[@G.Aaron.Fisher]

Ultimately, every license is an optional way to extend the rights to a work. Licenses are whitelists, not blacklists. Saying "No Forking" in the WCL isn't in violation of any of GitHub's rules. It's entirely permissible (if a bit daft) to include that in their license. GitHub's ToS provides *a different license* on top of that, that grants the permission to for its users to fork projects, etc.

[@SXZ-dev]

This is a good point, by banning forks they technically violate Github's TOS

[@typingcat]

I don't know, do we need WinAmp? Well, maybe on Windows, because there wasn't any good music player on Windows, last time I checked, but on Linux, there are so many good music players.

[@parawizard]

I prefer Dopamine which is now cross platform! Originally windows only but re-developed. I highly recommend to check it out.

[@GeorgeTsiros]

name _one_ that is as easy to use and as powerful as winamp. Just _one_

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

I remember it being great decades ago because of that. But, even the basic WMP has gotten pretty good and there's a ton of better programs that can handle more formats and work more efficiently. Sometimes software needs to be left in the past with Bonzi Buddy, Clippy and Bob.

[@katrinabryce]

@@GeorgeTsiros vlc? mpc-hc?

[@typingcat]

@@GeorgeTsiros qmmp

[@garethlagerwall]

I don't see any restrictions limiting sharing your diffs under a different (gpl?) license. such that anyone can re-create for themselves the changes/mods that you made. Or am I missing something?

[@Bunstonious]

I would adore a spotify plugin for Winamp. Gosh I miss Winamp.

[@sebastianbauer4768]

3 min in, if you think that way about the Winamp licence the apache licence will blow your mind.

[@arubaga]

If you build Winamp on your system, didn’t you just distribute it on your system?

[@ivailogeimara]

So you also can't propose changes? Because the way you create PRs if you don't have rights to the repo is: fork, make changes, open PR in the original repo to merge the changes from your repo.

[@danheneise]

*screams in Richard Stallman*

[@bren42069]

lol winamp. i haven't even used xmms in ages

[@yellingintothewind]

If the goal is to keep it centralized, then require forks are maintained on github. This is basically the idea behind the AGPL, like it or hate it.

[@katrinabryce]

AGPL means if you offer a hosted version of it, people who use the hosted version are entitled to the source code. Not really relevant to Winamp, more applicable for things like Plex and Jellyfin.

[@yellingintothewind]

@@katrinabryce Correct. The _idea_ behind the AGPL is that you cannot take the code, modify it, and use it to provide _access_ to the software without providing the software itself. WinAmp appears to want to go one step further and say you cannot modify it (even for private use) without giving access to the source code _back to WinAmp_ . That way they don't lose control over the project. If that is their goal, an AGPL-like license, with an additional requirement that the modified source code must be provided _both_ to the recepients of the software (or serve) _and_ upstream to the WinAmp project itself would serve their goals better.

[@MinePossu]

Maybe just release a script to dowload the modified source and compile it on the users machine since that wouldn't be technically distribution as the user itself builds a custom fork for their own use.

[@Your_Degenerate]

If there's a tie on the door we're forking inside.

[@Arturiens]

no lama ass fork?

[@SDWNJ]

Or “Llama’s Ass Whips You.”

[@HumanShield117]

My favorite part, even better than what a mess the codebase is, is just how much closed-source "not for distribution" source-code is available. And they can't seem to figure out how to remove it. xD

[@soppaism]

Well, that's worse than closed source. At least one wouldn't waste their time modifying them binaries.

[@MorgothCreator]

How you can ask to contribute if you are not allowed to modify the code and make pull requests to contribute to the project 😒

[@TheGreatSteve]

Theoretically, you could turn any software into hardware? Maybe I'm thinking this through too far?

[@samuellourenco1050]

If they open source it, they can't forbid forking. It is just against the definition of open source.

[@NotMarkKnopfler]

How do you do a PR without a fork?

[@chilversc]

You could send them a patch I suppose. Though I don't think GitHub has direct support for that. I guess you create an issue and paste the patch as a code block.

[@aDifferentJT]

The funny thing is that you can't submit a PR without violating the license

[@Dust86]

Would love musicmatch jukebox pre-yahoo aquisition to be released

[@billb6283]

Would love to see it running natively on Linux with Milkdrop.

[@MadsterV]

what's your take on the Duckstation emulator going from open source to closed source and repos being deleted?

[@breadmoth6443]

how does an open source license not allow forking? how is that even enforceable anyhow if it is open source ( and not say a closed source like source available) or something ?

[@SXZ-dev]

The term "open source" has no legal definition, it can mean anything you want, if they choose to interpret it as what you'd call "source available" they may

[@desertfish74]

The issue tracker of the repo on github is quite something.

[@ErazerPT]

As for no distribution of modified versions, it's there true, but... they can't stop you from making diffs and distributing that. No code of theirs there, no foul. The only part i would care about this whole shebang is that maybe, just maybe, someone from foobar2k can do some work on getting Winamp plugins to work well with foobar2k now that they have full source to look at. Don't miss the clunky UI at all, nostalgia not that bad here...

[@horusfalcon]

When in doubt, fork it. When not in doubt, get in doubt! 😆 If it's open source, it can, by definition, be forked. They can call their agreement anything they want, but they really shouldn't call it Open Source if it can't be copied, modified, and re-distributed. Winamp is getting what they deserve for that kind of silliness. Their whole "just the tip" attitude is messed up on a lot of messed up levels. Ah, yes... deletion or hiding of posts... the first sign of something that is not as it should be. This whole thing is just sad: Winamp is so five minutes ago, anyway, so what is their interest in making a codebase "open source" while at the same time trying their darndest to keep control over that codebase? Somebody pass the popcorn -- this is gonna be good. The school of hard knocks is now in session.

[@arubaga]

Didn’t some of the user made Winamp skins were free or public domain?

[@simonwatkins999]

Perfect PR move by them.

[@SaltMineRanch]

How is Winamp even relevant anymore? I haven't needed to use it since I was a kid and I'm approaching the age where I might not wake up tomorrow. I'll file this behind my MS-DOS 1.25 source in order of relevancy.

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

They aren't. It was kind of cool a couple decades ago, but there are so many free media players that do it better now. And I mean free in basically every possible interpretation of the word.

[@EricLefebvrePhotography]

I feel you ... hitting 50 in a few months. I remember the days before CELLPHONES and the publicly awailable internet. The first programs I wrote I saved an AUDIO TAPED from my old TRS-80.

[@Foche_T._Schitt]

Deadbeef works just fine.

[@michelians1148]

Winamp's childish demands broke github's ToS anyway.

[@androth1502]

does anyone still use winamp? i haven't used it in ... years...

[@R.Daneel]

For "other types of works" - perhaps they're trying to communicate that they think this is so amazing it will become another ubiquitous licensing "approach" or "template". E.G. Shades of creative commons/gnu/etc... They're failing to communicate that - but that's my take on the wording.

[@kevinlkoehler]

Does it come with milkdrop

[@NotMarkKnopfler]

Does it run on Linux? I always thought it was a great music player.

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

It was a couple decades ago, but I doubt that it's as good now, comparatively speaking, as it was when it was more or less the only option. Personally, I prefer Foobar2k , VLC and any number of other media players depending on what I'm doing. I think the last time I thought about Winamp was when Wesley Willis died and only because he's the one that came up with the whole catch phrase.

[@Skathacat0r]

Perhaps people should instead look into Plainamp, a GPLv2 licensed audio player with its own Winamp core implementation.

[@meskes4059]

Why? Just fork it to spite them. They let the cat out of the bag. Now they really can’t enforce it

[@Russell.Jolly.2023]

That's some forked-up news.

[@johngagne2330]

Ambiguity in a contract benefits the party that didn't write it. Just sayin

[@rickyrico80]

That Llama got his ass whooped

[@TheoParis]

Yikes, look at the closed issues tab.

[@joshallen128]

Webamp it's on archive

[@josephs3973]

At the time of this watching, it's up to 987 forks... oops 988.... oops 989...

[@user-qx2ec7oe9p]

Interesting the distro had closed source code from Dolby and others... So we can't distribute Winamp... But they can distribute others people's licenced software and source??? 😂 They are going to be sued into oblivion.... So obviously a lawyer never looked at this or anyone with any experience. Amateurish.

[@Ensue85A]

Maybe they should have called it WinCramp....ow ow ow.....

[@burtonrodman]

Do they realize you have to create a fork to submit a PR 😂

[@pong-sx9je]

I like cmus better. Winamp would be interesting for nostalgia reasons but I probably wouldn't use it under Linux.

[@Spiderboydk]

There is absolutely nothing copyleft about this license.