For anyone who doesn’t get this comment https://youtu.be/Q-25c8Rsobw

Great comparison, a dialect used by millions of people to a dead language. It really shows how much you care about the people who speak that dialect…

YotoPhone. They also made a version 2 & 3. Unfortunately, Yota went bankrupt.

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.

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?

Can it? Certainly. People have been doing so for years now.

Should you? None of us can answer that for you. None of us know your needs, your technical proficiency, or your willingness to put up with bugs/quirks

If you’re interested, you should go read/listen/watch the experiences of users and ask questions once you have some specific ones.

I don’t think that’s a fair assessment, and I’m someone who’s pretty invested in both projects (I’ve been using Beeper for almost a year and I’m still wearing a Pebble).

You really can’t compare any other country to the Great Firewall of China.

Signal is only officially distributed through Google Play, so their APK isn’t reproducible, and I believe it still contains binary blobs.

Sure, but any messaging app (including Signal) could have these backdoors in place. Heck, there’s even vectors for unrelated apps on your phone to read this data once unencrypted.

Would it not be E2EE? Isn’t that one of the reasons for using the Signal protocol?

Thanks for the links. As I read it, none of that is saying their ratio is below 1:1, just that they switch between vehicles as needed.

And the “what their operators do” link sounds like they are the equivalent of a driving instructor sitting in the passenger seat, giving instructions but not “directly controlling” the vehicle.

I haven’t heard about Waymo being below 1:1. Do you have a source? I’d love to read it.

AVs don’t have a driver, instead they have 1.5 operations staff per vehicle.

It’s not happening.