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: Why is foobar2000 closed, not open source? (Read 20965 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Why is foobar2000 closed, not open source?

Hi,

I know this question has been asked before, but I haven't found any answer yet.
I've searched the forum with the keyword "+open +source", "+closed +source", (the search doesn't accept "+source +code") and also used google but I still haven't found the answer.

I would like to know if this question has already been answered by Peter. I found some speculations by other users about the possible answer, but I would really like to know the "official" intention behind it. Why is foobar2000 closed source? What are the benefits?

Thanks,

Christoph

Why is foobar2000 closed, not open source?

Reply #1 –
perhaps you should search better:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=270991

I'm sure what you'll find is a bunch of closed thread, like this one will probably become.
elevatorladylevitateme

Why is foobar2000 closed, not open source?

Reply #2 –
Quote from: shakey_snake on
perhaps you should search better:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=270991


Well, there's a typo in the topic: "... How Opein is source?" and I don't want to spend ten hours searching for every post with the words "source, closed, open", so you didn't convince me (yet) that I should "search better". I'm not a complete newbie to using a search engine, but maybe you have some hint for me to "search better"?

Thanks for the link to the Thread, I didn't know it yet. It gives me some more information, but it doesn't answer my question.

Quote
I'm sure what you'll find is a bunch of closed thread, like this one will probably become.


Well, in this case it would be helpful to have a "search for closed threads" option, but there is none.

Anyway, back to the main question. I've found many threads and yes - many of them are closed. I wonder why, because often I don't even see a reason for closing them, like this one here:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....rt=#entry300207

Another thread, which I don't consider helpful at all, is still open:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....rt=#entry559184


I can understand people in this forum getting annoyed by this question, because it has been asked often already. But there's a simple reason why it's beeing asked again and again: There is no answer to it, that can easily be found (at least for me). Also I haven't yet found a single good reason FOR closed source, but already experienced problems that I *eventually* wouldn't have if foobar2000 were open source.

So to further prevent the question, Peter could just put a reasonable answer here or in the FAQ. If he doesn't, people will go on asking and probably feel that Peter is hiding something from us - like I feel right now.


Don't get me wrong - I'm not complaining about foobar2000 not beeing open source - I would even pay "a lot" for it. I am however complaining, that foobar2000 doesn't meet its own standards:

Quote
It is illegal to use this SDK as a part of foobar2000 components that operate outside of legally documented programming interfaces (APIs), such as using window procedure hooks to modify user interface behaviors. We believe components doing so to be harmful to our userbase by introducing compatibility issues and dependencies on undocumented behaviors of our code that may change at any time without any notice or an update to the SDK which would reflect the change.


This part of the SDK says, that components should stick to the documented API, to prevent incompatibilities. However, many components are now incompatible (I guess because of changes in the API). This is really annoying, because often the components themselves are not open source.

So, Peter has released the API as open source. 'kode54' wrote:

Quote from:  link=msg=270931 date=0
There is enough information in the SDK for a capable developer to replicate the player's core functionality. Surprisingly, nobody has done so yet. Perhaps it is because there is a severe shortage of capable programmers who would actually want to reimplement the core.


Well, I now pretend to have the capabilities to reimplement the core, I just consider it ineffective. It would probably take me years to do so and I just don't want to spend that much time on it. I would however spend a few weeks on porting a plugin that is incompatible because of an API change to the new API. But this is not possible, because I don't have the source code for the plugin (right now I don't even have a binary for foo_record for example). So my philophy would be to force people (by license) to make the components open source as well.

To emphasize the quintessence of my post: I'm unhappy with the incompatibilities this closed source approach comes with and I don't see any reason (unless Peter wants to sell foobar2000) that makes them up.

So, maybe you can explain what makes up these problems?

Christoph

Why is foobar2000 closed, not open source?

Reply #3 –
I would also love to see foobar2000 open.

Why is foobar2000 closed, not open source?

Reply #4 –
Quote from: kobelix on
So, maybe you can explain what makes up these problems?
Those "problems" exist only in your head. What really bothers you is that 3rd party component authors don't support their creations years after the release or that they don't leave the source code behind, so that somebody could possibly continue (which is possible with e.g. LGPL license and some components are using it even now).

Otherwise I don't understand why people can't just accept the foobar2000 licensing model as it is, without writing two-page post full of sarcasm. If you are so uncomfortable with it, just use one of the dozens of open source audio players out there and help to make it even better than fb2k, in the great open and free community-style fashion. It's unlikely that will happen, but still more probable than foobar2000 suddenly going open source after the years. And certainly more productive than beating this dead horse again and again.
Full-quoting makes you scroll past the same junk over and over.

Why is foobar2000 closed, not open source?

Reply #5 –
Quote from: kobelix on
Quote from: shakey_snake on
perhaps you should search better:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=270991


Well, there's a typo in the topic: "... How Opein is source?" and I don't want to spend ten hours searching for every post with the words "source, closed, open", so you didn't convince me (yet) that I should "search better". I'm not a complete newbie to using a search engine, but maybe you have some hint for me to "search better"?
Sorry my search strategies are proprietary. 

You know at the application level, there is really no reason a modular program like fb2k would ever be open source. Because if it was open source, it would make WAAAY more sense for a developer to just hack on the core when they want something done.  Of course, then you end up with something completely unusable like the Mozilla Suite became (or amarok is).

And, of course, if fb2k wasn't modular you'd really be talking about a completely different program.
elevatorladylevitateme

Why is foobar2000 closed, not open source?

Reply #6 –
For me the key benefit of open source software is the ongoing and fast development. This factor is perfectly given for foobar2000! We've had new beta versions every month now for as long as news on the foobar2000 website go back. Apart from that I have yet to come across a beta/final that crashes on my system. I don't see any reason to go open source with foobar.
Concerning the plugins, I'm sure there will be some exciting updates/inventions as soon as the new SDK is released.

Why is foobar2000 closed, not open source?

Reply #7 –
Why do people always assume that open source = better? (serious question) What are the benefits of open source over closed source that make open source so much preferable, especially in the case of foobar? And what do outdated third party plugins have to do with closed source?

Why is foobar2000 closed, not open source?

Reply #8 –
Quote from: shakey_snake on
You know at the application level, there is really no reason a modular program like fb2k would ever be open source. Because if it was open source, it would make WAAAY more sense for a developer to just hack on the core when they want something done.
No, it wouldn't make sense. Some people would do it anyway, because they're lazy or inexperienced. I don't mean to offend anybody, but that's just the way the world goes.

Why is foobar2000 closed, not open source?

Reply #9 –
Seems to me that a reasonable answer to this question has been given; because the creator of the program doesn't want the program to be open-source. If software design is a creative endeavor (and I certainly think that it can be), then the creator's wishes, for better or worse, are what's really important in this equation. Not every creative work needs to be, can be, or should be collaborative.

As for whether open source is superior or inferior to closed source, I make it my practice to stay out of religious debates on the internet.

Why is foobar2000 closed, not open source?

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Yirkha on
Quote from: kobelix on
So, maybe you can explain what makes up these problems?
Those "problems" exist only in your head.

I don't agree at all. So called 3rd party components are in my opinion a major part of foobar2000, because they add valueable functionality that many user find useful. They also make foobar2000 very popular. Saying "they are not part of foobar2000" is only half of the truth.

If I used foobar for a year, then installed an updated version and some 3rd party component wouldn't work anymore, I would have to use the old version - if available. If it's not available or I want to use an old and a new Plugin at the same time, this is a real problem for me.

Quote from: Yirkha link=msg=0 date=
What really bothers you is that 3rd party component authors don't support their creations years after the release

This is something you cannot prevent. People just stop supporting them, they do something else with their lifes or they just die. This happens and we all know about it.

Quote from: Yirkha link=msg=0 date=
or that they don't leave the source code behind, so that somebody could possibly continue (which is possible with e.g. LGPL license and some components are using it even now).

Exactly, this bothers me, especially because it is something that could be prevented by the licensing model. Just force them to release the sourcecode. I think it's a very bad idea to hope that every 3rd party component author will always support his or her component, while in fact we all know that many of them won't. Forcing them to reveal the source code will also make it much easier to check if the plugin is behaving as wanted.

Quote from: Yirkha link=msg=0 date=
Otherwise I don't understand why people can't just accept the foobar2000 licensing model as it is, without writing two-page post full of sarcasm.

Well, I suppose you are talking about my post. I put exactly one slighty sarcastic senctence into it (searching for closed threads), no more.

I can also tell you why I'm writing this post (if you're interested): I've been using it for some weeks now, spent dozens of hours and days learning what it can do and how it works. I found out that foobar2000 is a lovely program, the best I've come accross for a long time, except the licensing. I was thinking about writing a plugin, but it would have to rely on other plugins working correctly, so I'm really hesitating now.

I repeat: It's not about beeing open source or free of charge, it's about the program and component compatibility and availability. Open source programs don't have some of these problems by nature, but closed source programs can also get rid of the problems, which is not yet done for foobar2000 in my opinion. Why do you think so many people want foobar2000 to be open source? Just because they have a better feeling when installing it? This might be true for some of them, but there are certainly good reasons to adjust the licensing and/or to make foobar2000 open source.

Quote from: Yirkha link=msg=0 date=
If you are so uncomfortable with it,

I'm not "so uncomfortable" with it, it's just that the closed source approach has an unknown and therefore "dark" future. What would happen with the program if Peter died today? He would be just like one of the 3rd party component authors: He wouldn't support foobar2000 anymore and probably leave no source code behind. Foobar2000 would be dead today.

Quote from: Yirkha link=msg=0 date=
just use one of the dozens of open source audio players out there and help to make it even better than fb2k,

I don't want to try out every single Program, it takes lots of time and at the moment I'm happy with the functionality of foobar2000.

Quote from: Yirkha link=msg=0 date=
in the great open and free community-style fashion. It's unlikely that will happen, but still more probable than foobar2000 suddenly going open source after the years. And certainly more productive than beating this dead horse again and again.

Well, now you are beeing sarcastic. Maybe it's not as unlikely as you think. Many former closed source program authors have released the code to the public, probably because they have come to the point where benefits of open source are worth more than the drawbacks. Some examples are OpenOffice.org (formely StarOffice) and BRLCad (formerly closed source by the US military).

Maybe Peter will come to the same conclusion some day, maybe not. I just would like to understand why it's closed.

Just give me one single good reason, why foobar2000 is closed source and I will stop arguing, but don't be upset if I argue against the reason if it's not a good one.

Ok, here's one I've often heard before:

Quote
Because if it was open source, it would make WAAAY more sense for a developer to just hack on the core when they want something done. Of course, then you end up with something completely unusable like the Mozilla Suite became (or amarok is).

While I've seen people from the closed source side arguing that the equation "open source = better" is often wrong, you have to admid that "because the program is open source everyone can change the source code and mess up the program" is complete nonesense for the official release. Peter could still maintain his clean version of foobar2000 and watch other people messing up forks of his program. He wouldn't have to support them, not even put a link on his website. And if that open source version was really that bad, people would stick to the original.

Chris

Why is foobar2000 closed, not open source?

Reply #11 –
Quote
it's about the program and component compatibility and availability


Stick with the SDK docs and your compatible. Is there a problem with availability? 0.8x plug-ins weren't compatible with 0.9x but they all eventually made it over in one form or another regardless of whether it was the original developer or someone else.

Why is foobar2000 closed, not open source?

Reply #12 –
Quote from: kobelix on
Just give me one single good reason, why foobar2000 is closed source and I will stop arguing, but don't be upset if I argue against the reason if it's not a good one.
Because the author does not wish it to be. If the author's judgment is that poor by your assessment, go use another player, because obviously he's not competent enough to continue to develop this one as a closed-source product.

Why is foobar2000 closed, not open source?

Reply #13 –
Quote from: kobelix on
I can also tell you why I'm writing this post (if you're interested): I've been using it for some weeks now, spent dozens of hours and days learning what it can do and how it works. I found out that foobar2000 is a lovely program, the best I've come accross for a long time, except the licensing. I was thinking about writing a plugin, but it would have to rely on other plugins working correctly, so I'm really hesitating now.
If you're thinking about developing anything for the windows platform, then you need to  depend on Window's API to be working correctly. Since Windows is not open source, you should really be hesitating about your choice of platform.

And if foobar2000 is "the best [media] program you've come across in a long time", shouldn't that beget a certain amount of faith in its closed source development model? It's not like it doesn't have open source competitors.

Quote from: kobelix on
I repeat: It's not about beeing open source or free of charge, it's about the program and component compatibility and availability.

...

While I've seen people from the closed source side arguing that the equation "open source = better" is often wrong, you have to admid that "because the program is open source everyone can change the source code and mess up the program" is complete nonesense for the official release. Peter could still maintain his clean version of foobar2000 and watch other people messing up forks of his program. He wouldn't have to support them, not even put a link on his website. And if that open source version was really that bad, people would stick to the original.

Taken together these arguments make no sense. If all your nonsensical arguments in this thread are really "all about component compatibility", then what good is it to have multiple, incompatible versions of the core floating around?



Quote from: kobelix on
Just give me one single good reason, why foobar2000 is closed source and I will stop arguing
No one needs to give you anything. No one really cares how long you argue.

foobar2000 is offered for free as a take it or leave it package.
If it's license cause you to pull your FOSS underwear up your butt too far, you probably need to leave it. 
elevatorladylevitateme

Why is foobar2000 closed, not open source?

Reply #14 –
Quote from: Canar on
Because the author does not wish it to be.

Wow, really a good reason. So people will go on asking and give you the opportunity to tell them the same thing again and again - but never answer the question. Hope you're happy with that.

Quote from: Canar on
If the author's judgment is that poor by your assessment, go use another player, because obviously he's not competent enough to continue to develop this one as a closed-source product.

It's not about his competence, it's about his intention. I'll have a look at the other programs around.

Why is foobar2000 closed, not open source?

Reply #16 –
Quote from: shakey_snake on
And if foobar2000 is "the best [media] program you've come across in a long time", shouldn't that beget a certain amount of faith in its closed source development model? It's not like it doesn't have open source competitors.

There doesn't need to be any correlation between a program beeing open source and its quality. And I doubt there is in case of foobar2000.

Quote from: shakey_snake on
Quote from: kobelix on
I repeat: It's not about beeing open source or free of charge, it's about the program and component compatibility and availability.

...

While I've seen people from the closed source side arguing that the equation "open source = better" is often wrong, you have to admid that "because the program is open source everyone can change the source code and mess up the program" is complete nonesense for the official release. Peter could still maintain his clean version of foobar2000 and watch other people messing up forks of his program. He wouldn't have to support them, not even put a link on his website. And if that open source version was really that bad, people would stick to the original.

Taken together these arguments make no sense. If all your nonsensical arguments in this thread are really "all about component compatibility", then what good is it to have multiple, incompatible versions of the core floating around?

You're obviously twisting my words here.

Quote from: shakey_snake on
Quote from: kobelix on
Just give me one single good reason, why foobar2000 is closed source and I will stop arguing
No one needs to give you anything. No one really cares how long you argue.

Even if no one else in this world was caring, at least you would do by still replying to my posts in an offesive way.
And of course nobody needs to give me anything, nobody needs to give anything to anybody anyway.

Quote from: shakey_snake on
foobar2000 is offered for free as a take it or leave it package.
If it's license cause you to pull your FOSS underwear up your butt too far, you probably need to leave it. 

I have to admit that taking or leaving is not my strength. I continuously try to improve things, even when not asked for it.

It's just that I've asked a simple question to which many people would like to know the answer.

If giving an answer as friendly as the question is too much for the foobar2000 developer(s) and his community then this piece of software is not the right thing for me.

Why is foobar2000 closed, not open source?

Reply #17 –
Quote from: shakey_snake on
You're really the only unhappy party here.

Trying to be a mentalist telling me about my feelings? Let me give you some help: I'm not unhappy, I'm just disappointed. Let's see if the disappointment is big enough ...

Why is foobar2000 closed, not open source?

Reply #18 –
Quote from: kobelix on
You're obviously twisting my words here.
Well, I must be stupid then because the twisting is not obvious to me. How do your statements NOT stand in contradiction?

Quote from: kobelix on
There doesn't need to be any correlation between a program beeing open source and its quality. And I doubt there is in case of foobar2000.
...
I have to admit that taking or leaving is not my strength. I continuously try to improve things, even when not asked for it.

Again, I do not understand how these statements can be made at the same time. If your goal is to improve foobar2000, but there is no correlation between a program's quality and the openness of it's source, why are you wasting your time insisting that the source be made open?
Are there not more productive ways for you to improve it's quality?

Quote from: kobelix on
It's just that I've asked a simple question to which many people would like to know the answer.

If giving an answer as friendly as the question is too much for the foobar2000 developer(s) and his community then this piece of software is not the right thing for me.
The friendly answer is the link I gave you in post #2. However, your persistence is not friendly or benevolent.
elevatorladylevitateme

Why is foobar2000 closed, not open source?

Reply #19 –
Quote from: shakey_snake on
Quote from: kobelix on
You're obviously twisting my words here.
Well, I must be stupid then because the twisting is not obvious to me. How do your statements NOT stand in contradiction?

I don't have the impression that you're stupid, just some kind of mean.

First you cited me correctly (in the box): "... it's about the program and component compatibility and availability."
Then you did another cite: "all about component compatibility" leaving out the "and availability". Why?
I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) because you know, that realeasing the source code would significantly increase the availability of foobar2000.

Then you (sarcastically?) asked: "then what good is it to have multiple, incompatible versions of the core floating around?"
I never said that foobar2000 and an imaginary fork of it should be compatible. I just want to be able to use the program and plugins that I need. This is not assured, for several reasons:
1. The components themselves are often closed source, thus making it unsure if they will be available after the next API change => no compatibility
2. There is no central location where I can find 3rd party components. It may happen that they disappear completely => no availability
3. Peter might again change the foobar2000 license for new versions, MS might release a new OS where older Versions of foobar2000 won't run => no compatibility


Quote from: shakey_snake on
Quote from: kobelix on
There doesn't need to be any correlation between a program beeing open source and its quality. And I doubt there is in case of foobar2000.
...
I have to admit that taking or leaving is not my strength. I continuously try to improve things, even when not asked for it.

Again, I do not understand how these statements can be made at the same time. If your goal is to improve foobar2000, but there is no correlation between a program's quality and the openness of it's source, why are you wasting your time insisting that the source be made open?
Are there not more productive ways for you to improve it's quality?


First: Please read my posts carefully. I never even asked to make the foobar core open source, so there is absolutely no "insisting that the source be made open".
Second: This is not a waste of time from my point of view for several reasons: I'm improving my english, learn how people behave in discussions and there still is a chance that I get an answer to my question.
Third: No, there is no more productive way in improving foobar2000, because the source is closed. I now even consider writing a 3rd party component a waste of time because it could be dead in a few weeks.

Quote from: shakey_snake on
Quote from: kobelix on
It's just that I've asked a simple question to which many people would like to know the answer.

If giving an answer as friendly as the question is too much for the foobar2000 developer(s) and his community then this piece of software is not the right thing for me.
The friendly answer is the link I gave you in post #2. However, your persistence is not friendly or benevolent.


I don't cosider this:
Quote from: shakey_snake link=msg=0 date=
perhaps you should search better:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=270991

I'm sure what you'll find is a bunch of closed thread, like this one will probably become.

a friendly answer. Even if the link had been helpful, the post wouldn't have left a friendly impression either.
What's unfriendly about my persistance? Or do you consider persistance itself unfriendly?

If Peter or some admin thinks that my question is not wanted in this forum because it's displeasing or for whatever other reason, he or she could just tell me and/or close the thread. I would accept it and leave.

But please don't pretend that my question has been answered when in fact it has not.

Chris

Why is foobar2000 closed, not open source?

Reply #20 –
That you don't like an answer does not prevent it from being an answer.

The reason it's not open-source is because Peter doesn't want it to be.

Peter doesn't want it to be because (this is inference, but I think it's reasonable inference) he wants to maintain control over a project with personal significance to him.

Why is foobar2000 closed, not open source?

Reply #21 –
Quote from: kobelix on
I now even consider writing a 3rd party component a waste of time because it could be dead in a few weeks.

Release your component under LGPL and you'll diminish these chances.

Quote from: kobelix on
But please don't pretend that my question has been answered when in fact it has not.

Really? Or... do you want to be answered by Peter only?

Why is foobar2000 closed, not open source?

Reply #22 –
Quote from: lvqcl on
Quote from: kobelix on
I now even consider writing a 3rd party component a waste of time because it could be dead in a few weeks.

Release your component under LGPL and you'll diminish these chances.

One problem is that I would eventually have to rely on other 3rd party plugins (like foo_record) which are not open source or even unavailable. I don't want to write a plugin for a software, where the philosophy does not suit me needs. I prefer to find another program or even try to write my own, where I can be sure it will still be available in five years if people want it. Otherwise I agree with you, releasing the component under LGPL would raise the chances of it beeing available.

Quote from: lvqcl on
Quote from: kobelix on
But please don't pretend that my question has been answered when in fact it has not.

Really? Or... do you want to be answered by Peter only?

I've read the thread a few times now, still I can't find an answer. If you found the answer, please be so kind as to cite it directly here, instead of giving me a link to a whole post.

Peter is the one who made the decision, so only he can tell why the project is closed source. This doesn't mean he has to answer my question personally here, but it would be really helpful (for me).
I just don't accept some speculation about something that might be the reason by someone I can't even tell if he knows Peter.

Why is foobar2000 closed, not open source?

Reply #23 –
kobelix, read Peter's post linked to by shakey_snake's first post if you would like to know why foobar2000 remains closed-source. You don't want to hear that, it is quite apparent. Unfortunately for you, the trolling ends here.