Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K (Read 4436 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K

Is there a chance that Foobar's source code might be relased publicly at some point in the future?

I am asking purely out of concern regarding preservation, since I'm not convinced that opening it up to potential contributions from outside would be a good idea (and probably not something the author wants anyway) - I actually admire the cohesiveness and well-defined direction in which this program had been growing for many years.

The license could explicitly forbid re-releasing forks of it for example in case it isn't something Peter would want to see happen.

What do you think?
Random digital audio nerd girl
A potato

Re: Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K

Reply #1 –
A licence may well forbid, but it can't prevent.
It's your privilege to disagree, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Re: Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K

Reply #2 –
We already have a public SDK, what purpose would exposing the codebase serve?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re: Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K

Reply #3 –
Quote from: 2tec on
We already have a public SDK, what purpose would exposing the codebase serve?

Preservation of the player code itself. SDK is unrelated, it's meant to make it possible to create plugins.
Random digital audio nerd girl
A potato

Re: Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K

Reply #4 –
Also i'd rather hear from people involved in the development themselves rather than from unrelated users - since it's only them who can make such a decision
Random digital audio nerd girl
A potato

Re: Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K

Reply #5 –
Do everyone a favour and search the forum, I'm sure Peter has declared on this kind of thing before.
It's your privilege to disagree, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Re: Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K

Reply #6 –
Quote from: Meowdori on
Also i'd rather hear from people involved in the development themselves rather than from unrelated users - since it's only them who can make such a decision
Actions speak louder than words. I'm sure Peter's position is well thought out. It's his code and people should respect his wishes. When and if he decides, then it will happen. Hasn't he already done enough? Just saying.

The developers are busy developing. Us non developers can only be grateful they are.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re: Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K

Reply #7 –
If I remember correctly - which is not a given - there was at least some source available in oooooold times, before Winamp fanboiz were spamming this forum to troll fb2k.

As for later:
Quote from: Meowdori on
Also i'd rather hear from people involved in the development themselves rather than from unrelated users - since it's only them who can make such a decision
A search engine is your friend. The developer's own words way back then: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,31222.msg270991.html#msg270991

As someone who grew up with various *n*xen and actually favour open source, but got enough pragmatism not to die upon single-issue hills and migrated to Windows over software availability (including how to interoperate with new workplace):
foobar2000 works and plays music, and that is what I need.
It doesn't force closed data formats upon me. Sure it has its own .fpl for playlists, but my music is safe and sound in FLAC, MP3, AAC, WavPack and then some.
If I have to make a migration that renders fb2k useless for me, I will commit my foo_external_tags metadata to the files and do the dirty job of finding a new player. Actually for Android I have alternated between the simple foldplay and the not-so-simple foobar2000 players.

Re: Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K

Reply #8 –
@Porcus , thanks for unearting old Peter's statements.
Some very solid arguments against opening the whole source code base.
We may be sure the code is safely and securely stored.

One small remark though - inheritance.
We have the case of `foo_upnp` plugin with lost author where lots of people (me included) still are forced to run 32-bit fb2k just because of lack of possibility to compile the plugin to 64-bits. With NO alternative available.

Question:
Who has currently the access to the whole code base, apart of Peter? May we have the confidence that Peter's opus magnum will be continued?

@Peter , I wish you all the best, of course  :D

Re: Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K

Reply #9 –
Quote from: papavlos on
One small remark though - inheritance.
We have the case of `foo_upnp` plugin with lost author where lots of people (me included) still are forced to run 32-bit fb2k just because of lack of possibility to compile the plugin to 64-bits. With NO alternative available.

Yeah, but would an open-sourced fb2k solve that? Authors who are "indifferent", would just as well release code as refrain from, based on terms in the SDK. But more permissive terms will allow authors to release the component with source or without. You chose a component without - who says it would even be there if it had to be FOSS? Maybe it would. Maybe not.

Another example is foo_facets, which had to be reimplemented as ReFacets in fb2k 2.0. Apparently the foo_facets author is still around here, the account was even recently active, but I have no idea whether Peter ever had access to any source element.
Sure reimplementation would at least not be harder if it were available.
But would there even have been such a component if openness were enforced? I don't know.

Re: Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K

Reply #10 –
"Lost developer" (i.e.,gone,silent,dead,ill,dementia, in retirement home, partner doesn't allow internet access, unknown) is a thing some of us may have already witnessed. It's an uncomfortable topic.
I have seen it, with an application reliant on a licence check (at every start) - which isn't even clear to users that it happens, had to analyse with a Wireshark equivalent.. If the license server, webhoster, whatever - has a problem and doesn't reply, software stops working a few seconds in.

It all comes down to this: If author cares about inheritance, good for us. If not (or something happened beforehand): bad luck, nothing we can do. Simple. 🤷

Re: Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K

Reply #11 –
Quote from: papavlos on
@Porcus , thanks for unearting old Peter's statements.
Some very solid arguments against opening the whole source code base.
We may be sure the code is safely and securely stored.

One small remark though - inheritance.
We have the case of `foo_upnp` plugin with lost author where lots of people (me included) still are forced to run 32-bit fb2k just because of lack of possibility to compile the plugin to 64-bits. With NO alternative available.

Question:
Who has currently the access to the whole code base, apart of Peter? May we have the confidence that Peter's opus magnum will be continued?

@Peter , I wish you all the best, of course  :D

There is not a single solid argument in that linked post.
Even if the code is stored securely, no one except the author has access to it - i was talking about publicly accessible means of preservation. And as someone else said, this doesn't account for scenarios where person who holds the code might become incapacitated in some way which might result in the source being forever lost. This has already happened to some software (Raster Music Tracker comes to mind - the source was released many years after the developer's tragic death, and that was just because some other person had access to the data and decided to do that for the greater good of the community assembled around that program).

It's fine if Peter decides against it but honestly, what rubs me the wrong way is people's prejudiced attitudes about this idea.
And i mean random people unrelated to the development who act like some kind of Peter's personal guardsmen.
Random digital audio nerd girl
A potato

Re: Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K

Reply #12 –
Quote
from: musiclife on Today at 07:51:30
I am even willing to donate an hefty amount.
Money brings trouble into the equation.

Re: Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K

Reply #13 –
Quote from: Porcus on
If I remember correctly - which is not a given - there was at least some source available in oooooold times, before Winamp fanboiz were spamming this forum to troll fb2k.

As for later:
Quote from: Meowdori on
Also i'd rather hear from people involved in the development themselves rather than from unrelated users - since it's only them who can make such a decision
A search engine is your friend. The developer's own words way back then: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,31222.msg270991.html#msg270991

As someone who grew up with various *n*xen and actually favour open source, but got enough pragmatism not to die upon single-issue hills and migrated to Windows over software availability (including how to interoperate with new workplace):
foobar2000 works and plays music, and that is what I need.
It doesn't force closed data formats upon me. Sure it has its own .fpl for playlists, but my music is safe and sound in FLAC, MP3, AAC, WavPack and then some.
If I have to make a migration that renders fb2k useless for me, I will commit my foo_external_tags metadata to the files and do the dirty job of finding a new player. Actually for Android I have alternated between the simple foldplay and the not-so-simple foobar2000 players.


Thanks, that's valid, although it was long, long years ago, and since people's attitudes, views and goals tend to change over time, i concluded it'd be a good idea to bring the topic back and see what Peter thinks about it these days.
Random digital audio nerd girl
A potato

Re: Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K

Reply #14 –
Quote from: Meowdori on
what rubs me the wrong way is people's prejudiced attitudes about this idea.
And i mean random people unrelated to the development who act like some kind of Peter's personal guardsmen.

Don't post on forums then. Send e-mail or PM.

Re: Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K

Reply #15 –
Quote from: Meowdori on
And i mean random people unrelated to the development who act like some kind of Peter's personal guardsmen.
Just to be clear, anyone can post opinions, and those opinions may or may not be their own.  However, the reader should pay attention to the context: is that poster generally trustworthy, and do they have a longer experience of the forum than you.

Experience says Peter isn't going to release this stuff any time soon, and the reason others step in to say so is you'll be waiting a long time if you expect a personal reply.  Inhabiting the forum and answering queries is a contribution to the project those of us unable to "do" software can make – "pay forward".  The last thing we want is the developers being distracted by trivia.
It's your privilege to disagree, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Re: Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K

Reply #16 –
Quote from: lvqcl on
Don't post on forums then. Send e-mail or PM.

But, asking here first might save the dev's time.

BTW, here is a pinned topic: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,21512.msg427970.html#msg427970
... of course, FOSSing would imply some support for translation, and that's a nay.

Re: Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K

Reply #17 –
Quote from: Porcus on
Quote from: lvqcl on
Don't post on forums then. Send e-mail or PM.

But, asking here first might save the dev's time.

BTW, here is a pinned topic: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,21512.msg427970.html#msg427970
... of course, FOSSing would imply some support for translation, and that's a nay.

Exactly, i wouldn't want to bother people about it directly. It's just a proposition loosely thrown into the public ether, and (hopefully) someone in charge of the program's future is going to chip in sooner or later. That was my initial intention.
Random digital audio nerd girl
A potato

Re: Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K

Reply #18 –
I don't see any need to make it full FOSS, as Peter has given the project direction and stability. It is best left in his hands.

I do see the inheritance problem. I don't know if Peter has answered this or not, but is there some sort of backup plan in case something does prevent Peter from updating the software at some point? I would hate to upgrade to a new OS down the line and be forced onto different software, as foobar2000 is basically perfect as-is for me.

I guess what I'm asking is, does anyone aside from Peter have access to the full source in case Peter becomes unable to access it for any reason? Is there any sort of plan in place? I could see access to the source being given to at least one other highly trusted developer with an agreement that it not be forked, and only continued if it becomes necessary at some point. I hate that it's a morbid topic, but some kind of inheritance plan would put a lot of us at ease.
Think millionaire, but with cannons.

Re: Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K

Reply #19 –
Quote from: Cannonaire on
I don't see any need to make it full FOSS, as Peter has given the project direction and stability. It is best left in his hands.

I do see the inheritance problem. I don't know if Peter has answered this or not, but is there some sort of backup plan in case something does prevent Peter from updating the software at some point? I would hate to upgrade to a new OS down the line and be forced onto different software, as foobar2000 is basically perfect as-is for me.

I guess what I'm asking is, does anyone aside from Peter have access to the full source in case Peter becomes unable to access it for any reason? Is there any sort of plan in place? I could see access to the source being given to at least one other highly trusted developer with an agreement that it not be forked, and only continued if it becomes necessary at some point. I hate that it's a morbid topic, but some kind of inheritance plan would put a lot of us at ease.

I'm not sure if you read my initial post carefully, but i didn't necessarily meant making it FOSS for the purpose of accepting external contributions and influences. The development model could stay exactly the same as is, just making the source code accessible for others for preservation and possibly compiling on your own.

Many cases of such software exist - to name one example, Aseprite (aside of the difference that Aseprite binaries aren't freeware)
Random digital audio nerd girl
A potato

Re: Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K

Reply #20 –
Out of personal experience:

Nothing really good comes out of FOSSing projects. Most often or not they are cannibalized by commercial entities, and then them encouraging you to sue them to stop them to enforce a license.

Yes, I had that happen multiple times. I been burned by FOSS many times before. Never again. And the times I DO open source my things, absolutely nothing happens out of them. So, no.

And the times that things are fossed, it is done purely out of respect for the license (which in all cases tends to be the bloody GPL). But even then, they aren't respected by others most of the time.

Re: Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K

Reply #21 –
Quote from: mudlord on
Out of personal experience:

Nothing really good comes out of FOSSing projects. Most often or not they are cannibalized by commercial entities, and then them encouraging you to sue them to stop them to enforce a license.

Yes, I had that happen multiple times. I been burned by FOSS many times before. Never again. And the times I DO open source my things, absolutely nothing happens out of them. So, no.

And the times that things are fossed, it is done purely out of respect for the license (which in all cases tends to be the bloody GPL). But even then, they aren't respected by others most of the time.

I don't understand your dismissive approach. What about lots of succesful open source projects? Linux, Blender, Firefox, Wireshark, Krita, SumatraPDF, KeePass, WinSCP, OBS Studio, Notepad++, to name just a very few. Is there anything wrong with that software? Does the fact of them being foss do them any harm? I'm not sure what you've been doing and what your personal experience is but it sounds like you've gotten yourself into some very specific bubble of issues. Care to tell me more about what happened to your work?

Are you one of the core Foobar2000 devs btw?
Random digital audio nerd girl
A potato
 

Re: Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K

Reply #22 –
If a project starts as an open source development in the first place, that's one thing – usually because it's a spare-time interest which is too big for one person's lifetime.

FB2K is Peter's project, and it is his to treat as his own and decide what he likes.  That it is extensible makes it what it is and built a community of component developers and users, so everyone else contributing code are providing extension components, and so far as I know only Peter is the actual FB2K dev.  Publishing the source, regardless of licence conditions, would risk somebody plagiarising it for personal gain – licences are worthless unless you have the resources to enforce the licence, and in the commercial world those with the deepest pockets always win.

I'm sure the user base would like some assurance there is some kind of digital inheritance planned, but that is a wish not a need.  You've not paid for it, there is no implied guarantee, it is a nice-to-have not an essential.  If the worst came to the worst, it will always be possible to run the existing code base even if that required a virtual environment.
It's your privilege to disagree, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Re: Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K

Reply #23 –
Quote from: fooball on
Publishing the source, regardless of licence conditions, would risk somebody plagiarising it for personal gain – licences are worthless unless you have the resources to enforce the licence, and in the commercial world those with the deepest pockets always win.

And that's what happened to me. Numerous times. I had commercial entities actively gloating about that fact, even though I had done forensic reverse engineering to prove the code was stolen for their closed source software for their locked down hardware. This is why my attitude to FOSS has changed: the GPL is worthless in the current year. You might as well go public domain/The Unlicense/WTFPL and accept the code will be stolen for the code you accept is fine to be stolen, or go closed source. And that's what I have been doing.

Quote from: Meowdori on
Are you one of the core Foobar2000 devs btw?

I contributed code to the mobile ports of FB2K, but I am not the core developer. I have no control over it.

Re: Possibility of releasing the source code of FB2K

Reply #24 –
Quote from: papavlos on
One small remark though - inheritance.
We have the case of `foo_upnp` plugin with lost author where lots of people (me included) still are forced to run 32-bit fb2k just because of lack of possibility to compile the plugin to 64-bits. With NO alternative available.

Who knows? Maybe there will be a first-party UPnP solution for foobar2000 at some point in the future.