Obxd synthesizer

[MRT]

Just wanted to add my thanks to dDSP for picking up this project. The new release is the first one where everything is working correctly on my system.

[discoDSP]

I don't think Soshi has a word about it. He was just someone that picked the sources and went further. But the source code belongs to Filatov Vadim (2Dat), and the sources are here: https://github.com/2DaT/Obxd

AFAIK

I'm contacting 2Dat as well.

[chk071]

Actually, i think the free use of JUCE dictates that you make your program according to the GPL license, and provide the source code with it. As far as i understood it.

[aciddose]

The JUCE license has specific terms which are not compatible with the GPL.

It is required that the JUCE license (GPL variant) be applied (JUCE requires it) in order to allow the project to be compiled and distributed using interface libraries (VST, AU, ...) which are not GPL compatible.

This means GPL source-code (or source-code under similar license) may not be used in this project.

It also means anyone contributing to the project or distributing the source-code or binaries must be licensed and release their own code according to the licenses in question. (JUCE can be licensed for closed-source projects.)

It is important to note that those licenses are not GPL and couldn't possibly be.

[LoopLords]

The JUCE license has specific terms which are not compatible with the GPL.

Exactly, if it's build with JUCE, it can't be GPL. Their license doesn't allow that.

[Dozius]

JUCE is under a dual license. GPL and commercial. The commercial license allows you to use JUCE without the restrictions of the GPL license. The important part here is that it doesn't matter now. The source code for Obxd was released under the GPL, which means any software built on it needs to also be released under a GPL compatible license. Anyone releasing binaries based on 2Dats source code is legally required to follow the terms of the GPL. The only exception would be if the original author provides you with a different license (like how JUCE is dual licensed).

edit: Acidose raises some valid issues. You can argue that no VST plugin can be GPL because the VST SDK is not compatible. Personally I think these technicalities shouldn't get anyone off the hook.

edit2: For what it's worth, JUCE explicitly states it is licensed under GPLv2, v3, and the AGPLv3.

[aciddose]

It isn't under GPL though if you include the binary with the VSTSDK, since GPL isn't compatible with it.

The JUCE stand-alone plug-in may be GPL compatible but the VST plug-in can't be. In other words you can't mix GPL source-code and compile a VST plug-in, simply not possible. If you were to mix GPL source from another author (or a different project) it could only be used in a GPL-pure branch which could never be compiled as a VST plug-in.

You can get a JUCE commercial license ($1000) and compile a VST plug-in, but only if 100% of the source is authorized.

[fmr]

You can get a JUCE commercial license ($1000) and compile a VST plug-in, but only if 100% of the source is authorized.

And what exactly isn't authorized, if the source code is, by definition, authorized (or isn't it what GPL means)? Does the VST SDK license prevent anyone to use GPL sources to compile a plug-in?

I still didn't understand the exact meaning of this: "Anyone releasing binaries based on 2Dats source code is legally required to follow the terms of the GPL. The only exception would be if the original author provides you with a different license (like how JUCE is dual licensed)."

What exactly have to be released under GPL? Isn't it just the source code, with the modifications done?

All this license thing seems to exist just to prevent people to work freely.

[Dozius]

All this license thing seems to exist just to prevent people to work freely.

Queue GNU dad who will now argue that the license is about protecting freedom.

I forget the origin of this quote but it has always stuck with me "I didn't choose GPL for my library because I actually want people to use it."

The reality is that nobody is going to sue you for releasing an open source JUSE based VST, but the risk will always be there because technically you are violating licensing. It all comes down to whether you want to take on that risk or not.

It would be great if Steinberg just updated the licensing on the SDK and got rid of this mess for good. I believe they already did this with the vstgui library.

[cucio]

The JUCE stand-alone plug-in may be GPL compatible but the VST plug-in can't be. In other words you can't mix GPL source-code and compile a VST plug-in, simply not possible. If you were to mix GPL source from another author (or a different project) it could only be used in a GPL-pure branch which could never be compiled as a VST plug-in.

IANAL, but I think there is a difference between compiling and redistributing. AFAIK, you can redistribute a GPL'd VST plugin in source form (referencing Steinberg's headers, but not redistributing them) and provide the instructions for the user to download the VST SDK from Steinberg, drop it somewhere in the source tree and build the binary plugin. So 2Dat's Obxd is kosher GPL and uses JUCE under its GPL licensing.

You cannot, however, redistribute Steinberg's headers or redistribute a binary-only derivation of GPL'd code. If someone wants to take over Obxd, he or she has to do it under the GPL and thus provide the source code for the modifications as well, or obtain a different license from the original authors.

All this license thing seems to exist just to prevent people to work freely.

Well, yeah, also laws prevent thieves to steal freely. The important freedom here is 2Dat's, who did a lot of work and made his intentions clear on how that work should be used. Our own freedom should not come at the expense of that of the guy who put the hours to create the stuff we enjoy for free.

[chk071]

At least i'm happy that all that license BS is not just confusing for me.

[subterfuge]

I have a similar problem Andywanders mentioned earlier, the GUI is too wide for my monitor resolution. If I understood it right, one of the optional skins provided with the package has the old size? Unfortunately that doesn't make any difference here, I cannot get those alternative skins working. The instructions tell to place the skin files under Documents/OB-Xda. Only place where I have Documents folder in my system (Win10) is c:\Users\myusername\Documents\. Skin files don't work there, so I tried under c:\My Documents, doesn't work there either. Tested a possible absolute path(?) also by creating a new c:\Documents folder, no luck.

[fmr]

All this license thing seems to exist just to prevent people to work freely.

Well, yeah, also laws prevent thieves to steal freely. The important freedom here is 2Dat's, who did a lot of work and made his intentions clear on how that work should be used. Our own freedom should not come at the expense of that of the guy who put the hours to create the stuff we enjoy for free.

The Wikipedia says: "The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL or GPL) is a widely used free software license, which guarantees end users the freedom to run, study, share and modify the software.../... The GPL is a copyleft license, which means that derivative work can only be distributed under the same license terms.".

To me, 2Dat's intention when he chose GPL were clear - anybody is free to use the software, study it and modify it, but no one can compile it or create a derivative work of it, and take profit of that in any way.

That's why I always found it strange that move from Soshi. Sure, he just asked for "donations", but even so, to me he was already violating the spirit of the license. OTOH, taking the code, polish it, evolve it, and distribute an updated binary for free will NOT violate 2Dat's license or will.

Am I understanding something wrong here?

[cucio]

Am I understanding something wrong here?

Yes, and you quoted it yourself:

"The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL or GPL) is a widely used free software license, which guarantees end users the freedom to run, study, share and modify the software.../... The GPL is a copyleft license, which means that derivative work can only be distributed under the same license terms.".

Soshi was not redistributing under the same license terms because no one could study and modify the software he produced based on 2Dat's. Thus GPL violation. It is not only about the zero price tag. In fact, it is not at all about the zero price tag, but more about things like sharing knowledge and not having to waste humankind's resources reinventing the wheel.

[fmr]

Am I understanding something wrong here?

Yes, and you quoted it yourself:

"The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL or GPL) is a widely used free software license, which guarantees end users the freedom to run, study, share and modify the software.../... The GPL is a copyleft license, which means that derivative work can only be distributed under the same license terms.".

Soshi was not redistributing under the same license terms because no one could study and modify the software he produced based on 2Dat's. Thus GPL violation. It is not only about the zero price tag. In fact, it is not at all about the zero price tag, but more about things like sharing knowledge and not having to waste humankind's resources reinventing the wheel.

Yes, I said that, IMO, Soshi was violating the license (although not for the same reasons). But is there an issue with distributing the binaries, if the code is also distributed with them? Where does the Steinberg VST SDK enters? Is it necessary to compile the binary? Isn't JUCE enough?