I'm also not trying to be a jerk either but when I'm constantly being told by random people that I have to be OSS when it comes to WACUP that's also not particularly helpful other than introducing more potential work for me to do when there's absolutely no guarantee of a return to that effort. So maybe I'm more terse than I should be about such things but that's also just how I am.

It might make more sense for other projects especially those starting out fresh but that's not ever been my mindset with how I've been doing Winamp plug-in related development since 2003 along with the 5yrs I worked on Winamp & if that means people will avoid WACUP then so be it as they're more likely to be sticking with the AOL provided 2.x releases anyway.

Also it goes both ways on the trust aspects & maybe when the likes of fb2k, aimp & musicbee go OSS I might eventually reconsider my dinosaur like approach to development but there has to be a tangible benefit for me to do it.

I've already asked for help over the 5yrs or so I've been trying to make WACUP but the things that need help with doing are also the things that no one really wants to do (e.g. a new good midi input plug-in).

-dro (assuming this reply ever gets posted as I've been trying for over an hour)

> Also it goes both ways on the trust aspects & maybe when the likes of fb2k, aimp & musicbee go OSS I might eventually reconsider my dinosaur like approach to development but there has to be a tangible benefit for me to do it.

Forgive me for asking, but if the reason for you releasing WACUP to the public at all isn't purely personal benefit (if it was only about that might as well keep it to yourself right?) but to help people and share something that you deem useful and let others benefit from it, why would the source code be any different? Put another way: why is releasing the binaries publicly acceptable even if it doesn't benefit you directly, but doing the same thing for the source itself isn't?

Releasing a project as open source is associated with a lot of work and responsibility. People get quite entitled over open source projects and get quite upset when developers don't do what they want. I can see why he's unwilling to undergo all that stress and pressure if he feels it doesn't benefit him.

He can do what I do with my own personal projects: if you install something I wrote, you get the source code whether you want it or not. Setup.exe basically dumps a copy of my development directory into the specified installation folder.

That way, if I get hit by a bus, it's fine, The Source Is Out There. If someone wants to send a bug fix or improvement, great, thanks, I'll be glad to take a look. Otherwise, don't bug me.

The idea that "open source" is necessarily a full-time maintenance job with formal processes and expectations is something somebody made up.

> if you install something I wrote, you get the source code whether you want it or not. Setup.exe basically dumps a copy of my development directory into the specified installation folder.

This is really cool, can you share a bit about how you do this? Are you using a makefile and putting a gzip as an embed into the setup? Is this a function of the installer you're using? Thanks for any insight.

Not a whole lot to it. I just add the makefile, .cpp and .h files, Windows resource script, and other sources to the .iss file that Inno Setup uses to generate the setup program. They all get dumped in the same directory at installation time, for better or worse.

In the case of one commercial application, there are also binary blobs in the form of DLLs that support custom hardware.

It's not one of those practices that scales particularly well, but it works for me...

Seems to me like the fact it doesn't scale is why you do it. It's a decent way to avoid the responsibilities of having to lead an open source project while still giving others the benefits of having the source code available and modifiable. I wish more devs would do this.

Or he could just do it FamiTracker style: make no mention of source code on the website/communications, include a zip named "SOURCE" on the normal download which contains the source code, license, and a simple text file with build instructions.

> you're going to have to differentiate yourself from the folks who are also putting out winamp-alikes.

No one giving away software has to do anything. Maybe they'd get more donations as OSS or something, but it's no guarantee.

Yes, but nobody has to use their work.

I'd assume that people who make general-purpose open-source software with the intent of it being used by someone other than themselves.

So read the "have to" as "if you want to have people use and appreciate your work, this is a necessary step".

Which is definitely just that, an assumption. Some people write things just because they want to or can, and don't care whether anyone else finds it useful for their own purposes. It might just be something for a portfolio, to inspire others, etc, or again, just because. Lots of things are created "just because".

The decision is left to the end user, use it, or don't.

Same with "you have to" advice. The decision is left to the developer: use it, or don't.

Really don't see a problem here :)

The Windows ecosystem has a long history of closed source freeware. It doesn't seem strange at all to me.

fwiw dro’s been around a long time and i would be inclined to trust them :)

Yes, Exactly, Yes!

:) Thanks