"You are granted the right to view, access, and study the source code of the software. You are granted the right to Modify the software for private use only."
"No Distribution of Modified Versions: You may not distribute modified versions of the software, whether in source or binary form."
"No Forking: You may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked version of the software."
EDIT: looks like the title’s been corrected!
A better choice for the title would have been "Winamp Legacy player source code is now available".
>its source code was opened to the community
I find it hard to believe that any serious person would argue that "code that is open to the community" ≠ "open source code".
I think it's realistic to assume that the developers who wrote the README, and the lawyers who wrote the license didn't talk to each other much when making decisions about how much freedom users were going to have with the code.
It's also mostly about getting that lovely free dev work because with oh so many capable devs out there they're just going to be clamouring to want to give up anything where possible to be able to work on this along with trying to appear to be doing good. Even though they've halted development at least 3 times I'm aware off & ditched a number of dev teams under their 11yr tenure of ownership.
> The [license] is a free, copyleft license
And then proceeds to not be a free, copyleft license.
This pretty clearly seems like they're trying to squat on the terms "copyleft" "free software" and "open source" while weasel-wording their way out of it — "open washing", as someone else in the comments called it, seems to fit. This smacks of someone who wants to use the words, and to have you feel like they've used the words, but without having to actually do the things the words would mean, spoken genuinely.
What you're complaining about is free source code, which this probably is not.