KVR Audio

cucio · Post by **cucio** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 7:12 am

aciddose wrote:
The problem is this isn't true. The GPL in all versions requires the complete distribution of source-code with any binary.

Nope, the GPL includes the System Library Exception that allows GPL software to link against closed source libraries. Otherwise, for instance, the Linux kernel could not use closed source BIOS APIs, or you could not link GPL against Microsoft's VS DLLs.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.ht ... yException

In my opinion the VST SDK falls under this exception.

1wob2many · Post by **1wob2many** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 7:59 am

With all this discussion over licensing, what I really want to know is: will Obdx make my computer explode or not?

Kumi_27 · Post by **Kumi_27** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 8:08 am

It will explode sonically with Oberheim goodness

starflakeprj · Post by **starflakeprj** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 8:14 am

Since discoDSP has taken over the developing of OB-Xd, does it have to be continued to be released as open source? I mean, the original developer could anytime he wanted (afaik) decide the software is no longer to be released under the GPL licensing?

99.999% of the users wouldn't give a sh*t about what license it was released under, as long as it would still be free.

Edit: Under the condition the original developer gives his "blessing"of course.

1wob2many · Post by **1wob2many** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 8:18 am

Kumi_27 wrote:It will explode sonically with Oberheim goodness

1wob2many · Post by **1wob2many** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 8:23 am

starflakeprj wrote:99.999% of the users wouldn't give a sh*t about what license it was released under, as long as it would still be free.

This.

But judging from this thread, Obdx must have about 500,000 users.

Rappo Clappo · Post by **Rappo Clappo** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 8:25 am

Ok, but is it any good on drums?

starflakeprj · Post by **starflakeprj** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 8:27 am

1wob2many wrote:
starflakeprj wrote:99.999% of the users wouldn't give a sh*t about what license it was released under, as long as it would still be free.
This.

But judging from this thread, Obdx must have about 500,000 users.

Minimum

1wob2many · Post by **1wob2many** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 8:32 am

Rappo Clappo wrote:Ok, but is it any good on drums?

Definitely a double lol.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 8:42 am

cucio wrote:In my opinion the VST SDK falls under this exception.

If that were true any third-party library would also fall under the exception regardless of license. This would mean the GPL would be unenforceable.

This is called "reductio ad absurdum".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

You are clearly wrong.

You can see that you are wrong by simply reading the clauses in the GPL which I linked in my post. This exception applies to libraries required for normal operation on the target platform which are "normally included with the OS".

For example linking with Direct-X on Windows or (in theory albeit questionable) AU on OSX are allowed via this exception. VST is not.

If you were to use my GPL'd software in a VST binary without including the VSTSDK source under GPL, I would be absolutely pissed. You'd receive a cease-and-desist, I'd take whatever legal steps are required to end your distribution of unauthorized material (DMCA notices, etc) and I would hope you'd discontinue your distribution before any further action were required.

This is because such an action goes against the purpose of the GPL. The solution would be either A) you could acquire proper authorization or B) you could release the plug-in in a GPL-compatible format.

In this case I've described the solution: distribution of a JUCE/VST plug-in in binary form requires only original or otherwise authorized (non-GPL) source-code be used as well as the closed-source JUCE license be purchased by the distributor. If you believe this is not required you could get confirmation of this (authorization) from the JUCE and other rights holders.

Aloysius · Post by **Aloysius** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 8:56 am

You are about to enter the courtroom of Judge Judith Sheindlin. The people are real. The cases are real. The rulings are final. This is her courtroom. This is Judge Judy.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 8:58 am

Note that what I describe as the solution is exactly what George seems to be doing.

AZZIN · Post by **AZZIN** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 11:40 am

Hello and thanks to George for taking over this wonderful synth.
I'm on Linux 64 bit and I wonder if the presets that come with the linux archive can be loaded in some way. Any hints?
BTW: do you also plan to release a 32 bit version?

Thanks for your feedback.

Alberto

My two cents about the licencing stuff: if the original author licensed the code under GPL and Soshi took over that for his modifications, George, you shouldn't wait any permission from him about providing the code, as he was violating GPL first.

fmr · Post by **fmr** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 11:57 am

AZZIN wrote:Hello and thanks to George for taking over this wonderful synth.
I'm on Linux 64 bit and I wonder if the presets that come with the linux archive can be loaded in some way. Any hints?

Did you try to drag and drop the patches over the plug-in GUI? If your DAW doesn't have a menu that allows you to open plug-in patches, it's the only alternative I can remember.

cucio · Post by **cucio** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:40 pm

aciddose wrote: If that were true any third-party library would also fall under the exception regardless of license. This would mean the GPL would be unenforceable.

For example linking with Direct-X on Windows or (in theory albeit questionable) AU on OSX are allowed via this exception. VST is not.

I have no problems in admitting this is a murky area, but in the case of VST I see how its status as "System Library" would be defensible,as much as DX and AU, since it isn't tied to any specific software and for anyone who buys a computer for audio production the ability to dynamically load audio plugins is a major essential part of the system.

aciddose wrote:If you were to use my GPL'd software in a VST binary without including the VSTSDK source under GPL, I would be absolutely pissed. You'd receive a cease-and-desist, I'd take whatever legal steps are required to end your distribution of unauthorized material (DMCA notices, etc) and I would hope you'd discontinue your distribution before any further action were required.

I would respect your wishes, even if you release your software as PD.

I won't hold any legalese above the personal will of a creator, even if I arguably could.

aciddose wrote: This is because such an action goes against the purpose of the GPL.

As I understand it, the purpose of the GPL is to grant the licensee four freedoms:

the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
the freedom to change the software to suit your needs,
the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and
the freedom to share the changes you make.

I don't really see how distributing a binary GPLd VST curtails the spirit of any of these freedoms, just because you have to acquire its source components at two different places (your plugin repo and Steinberg's.)

Obxd synthesizer