Author Topic: Source Code  (Read 10647 times)

aafuss

  • Posts: 11
Source Code
« on: 29 May '06 - 15:38 »
Unlike BASS-Ian seems not to be releasing the XMPlay source code-as it's not public.  So if anyone wanted a Linux or Mac ver, then it's not possible.
« Last Edit: 29 May '06 - 15:47 by aafuss »

Zarggg

  • Posts: 1242
Re: Source Code
« Reply #1 on: 29 May '06 - 16:07 »
This is correct. XMPlay is classified as closed-source freeware.

Sebastian_Mares

  • Guest
Re: Source Code
« Reply #2 on: 29 May '06 - 19:07 »
BASS is open source? Did I miss something?

Aux

  • Posts: 91
Re: Source Code
« Reply #3 on: 8 Jun '06 - 08:50 »
Khm, I always thought BASS is closed-source too (: Well, anyway open-source is evil! Does open-source have XMPlay? No! Does open-source have Opera? No! I don't think that XMPlay should become open-source...

Sebastian_Mares

  • Guest
Re: Source Code
« Reply #4 on: 8 Jun '06 - 09:28 »
Sorry, but the only words that come in to my mind when I read your post (especially the last part) is "WTF?!".

addiction

  • Posts: 3
Re: Source Code
« Reply #5 on: 9 Jun '06 - 01:20 »

Not all open source need be GNU though.

Consider that a BSD style license allows un4seen to maintain its control over the project and its "official direction" without a hundred-thousand Xmplay's running around vying for community popularity.  Most developers around such a license submit patches (after screening them with their developing peers) for hopeful inclusion by those with oversight over the project.

One of the bad parts is preventing the stock ticker, the built-in webbrowser, the e-mail client, and the global positioning system from getting stuck into XMPlay, and just trying to keep it as "just a music player."

I'll admit when I saw xmplay the first thing I went for was the source code and was disappointed not to find it, but I understand its reasons (I had wanted to change one little thing that was bothering me for personal use only).  I know there are projects out there like OpenCubic and the stuff Jeff did for Impulsetracker to provide the formatting structs and specs and whatever else to design a player engine of our own.  I don't know if anyone has ever comprehensively archived them all but it wouldn't surprise me if it could all be found on one website out there. 

As a poor solo programmer trying to cut out a living in a world of outsourcing and brutal corporations beating their labor to death, I'm a bit slow to critisize people for not going to open source, but in a spirit I try to make my programs very customizable for the end-user if they want to go technical (I notice XMPlay also does this, as well as Firefox, NWN, and countless others).  Closed and Open are both good things, just for different reasons.  Sometimes Open products are better than Closed, and sometimes the other way around.  A lot of the time it just comes down to who is maintaining it, or if a company has good people or not versus the project's people.

There is also a certain amount of question of how much Closed copies material from Open, and Open developers with Closed source jobs taking company IP and putting it into their Open projects.  Usually it doesn't come down to blatant copying -- the algorithms vary for individual needs.  I don't think its talked about much, but it probably happens a lot.  Really both complement eachother.

Rah'Dick

  • XMPlay Support
  • Posts: 932
Re: Source Code
« Reply #6 on: 9 Jun '06 - 11:30 »
I think that the main reason why Ian doesn't make XMPlay Open Source is, that it uses a fair portion of the same code as BASS which Ian sells licences for. I don't know what he does for a living, but I bet the BASS licenses bring in a good amount of additional cash.

The only possibilities that this is going to happen, are:
1. Ian separates XMPlay's UI code from the playback code (xmplay.exe + bass.dll) and makes the UI code open source. (This would make XMPlay effectively a front-end for BASS.)
2. Ian makes both XMPlay and BASS open source, as they share quite some code.

1 is a bit unlikely, because that's one of the things that everyone likes about XMPlay - it's just that one .exe, nothing else (for basic playback). Maybe there is a way to embed .dlls into the executable as resource, dunno.
2 will only happen if Ian's bargain from BASS drops to a level that allows this, which I doubt. BASS is a great product. :)

(: JOBnik! :)

  • Posts: 1065
Re: Source Code
« Reply #7 on: 9 Jun '06 - 13:26 »
Hi ;D

Unlike BASS-Ian seems not to be releasing the XMPlay source code-as it's not public.  So if anyone wanted a Linux or Mac ver, then it's not possible.

For LiNUX, here's a post by Ian: https://www.un4seen.com/forum/?topic=5736.msg38810#msg38810

And why would you want to have the full source code? Is there a BiG reason for that?
for example, there's once leaked a source code of Win2K, have you done your own Windows with that? :)

btw, for education purposes, you can find a lot of information on http://www.sourceforge.net website :)
a lot of source codes for what ever you like :) (not including XMPlay/BASS of course).
« Last Edit: 9 Jun '06 - 13:33 by (: JOBnik! :) »

Rah'Dick

  • XMPlay Support
  • Posts: 932
Re: Source Code
« Reply #8 on: 9 Jun '06 - 13:32 »
Yeah, but "Linux version of BASS" might as well mean "closed-source binary release".  :P ;D

I agree. Most people don't need the whole source code, just some interfaces to hook into... IMHO.
« Last Edit: 9 Jun '06 - 13:33 by Rah'Dick »

(: JOBnik! :)

  • Posts: 1065
Re: Source Code
« Reply #9 on: 9 Jun '06 - 13:35 »
Hi ;D

Yeah, but "Linux version of BASS" might as well mean "closed-source binary release".  :P ;D

I agree. Most people don't need the whole source code, just some interfaces to hook into... IMHO.

Yep,  as with the OSX version :) only binaries.