aiui it means that all the source code is released and if anyone downloads and uses that source code in one of their own projects then all that project must be released under GPL.quincy wrote:Forgive my ignorance but i don't know much about GPL, apart from that its a very popular license for open source stuff.jtxx000 wrote:how about GPL? i'm not sure how well this would mix with the VST SDK though...quincy wrote:I might go in on this too. I haven't given much to this community but its given a lot to me, and i'd like to help out both the community and William.
I do think its important that the details are established at some point though. The nature of the source license etc. There are many different licenses, and it'll need to be agreed what the deal is if people are putting money in.
Maybe if someone could summarise the GPL license in realtively easy terms so that most of us could understand it. I'm gonna look into it whan i get a minute. Won't be for a few days though, i'm absolutely snowed under with work cos its the last few weeks of my dehgree.
Wusikstation Open Source kvr buyout
-
- KVRAF
- 1617 posts since 2 Dec, 2003
-
- KVRian
- 1023 posts since 8 Apr, 2003 from Östersund
True! The guys who've made soundbanks already would be a bunch of lucky fellasdjastroboy wrote:If a copy of WS ends up on every hardrive on Earth, the amount of money you would make doing presets & soundsets would be staggering.Kriminal wrote:So, how do we all make a profit from this?
/Majken
-
- KVRAF
- 1529 posts since 12 Jun, 2004 from Portland, OR
Anyways, if there's a chance that there will be updates, I would pitch some in.
It's just so hard to say with open source what the developement goals would be...
It's just so hard to say with open source what the developement goals would be...
-
- KVRAF
- 1617 posts since 2 Dec, 2003
keep in mind that it would have to be someone who programs in c (not delphi) and knows assembler...kodama wrote:If this is the way William chooses, I would be interested in seeing some developers comment on what they would do if it was GPL'd.
Does anyone know of any active open source or freeware synth devs (Glen, MDA, etc..) that could comment?
-
- KVRian
- 1327 posts since 8 Nov, 2003 from DC
How would those who have preorders get what they have paid for? I think that any buyout scheme will have to address that issue.
Last edited by Bassballjg on Mon May 23, 2005 10:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRian
- 1166 posts since 16 Aug, 2004
Id definitely put money into making it opensource (depending on the details).
-
- KVRAF
- 1529 posts since 12 Jun, 2004 from Portland, OR
Well, William would get the cash, so it would be his end of the bargain to handle refunds (or not).
Bassballjg wrote:How would those who have preorders get what they have paid for? I think that any buyout scheme will have to address that issue.
-
- KVRAF
- 1617 posts since 2 Dec, 2003
i wonder if william would allow this:Bassballjg wrote:How would those who have preorders get what they have paid for? I think that any buyout scheme will have to address that issue.
all the money that he recieved from wusikmod / version 1.2 orders would be subtracted from the company price tag. so if he's made $1000 from pre orders then he would sell the company for $11000 instead of $12000...
-
- KVRian
- 1166 posts since 16 Aug, 2004
I am one of the pre order victims, I wouldnt expect a buyout to make it opensource to provide me with any sort of refund other than to keep the synth going.Bassballjg wrote:How would those who have preorders get what they have paid for? I think that any buyout scheme will have to address that issue.
-
- KVRist
- 137 posts since 2 Sep, 2004 from St. Louis, MO, USA
Well, if it was open source, one person (or a comittee) would approve changes that people would submit. If you don't like the direction that the WS takes, you just "fork" your own version and do watcha want from there.J_Starner wrote:Could someone please clarify this for me? What will happen if it is bought by KVR members?
This forking of versions rarely happens in the big-time open source world of Linux/Apache/Perl etc., but musicians are a bit more touchy than server geeks...
Want WS for Mac? Here it comes.
Want WS for a Sun Workstation? Here comes.
Want to optimize for dual-core? Jump in!
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 35506 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
jtxx000 quoth
aiui it means that all the source code is released and if anyone downloads and uses that source code in one of their own projects then all that project must be released under GPL.
Almost. If someone redistributes absolutely anything based on the code they've downloaded and used, they have to provide the source to their version of the code.
aiui it means that all the source code is released and if anyone downloads and uses that source code in one of their own projects then all that project must be released under GPL.
Almost. If someone redistributes absolutely anything based on the code they've downloaded and used, they have to provide the source to their version of the code.
An idiot on Set Theory:
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
-
- Banned
- 6127 posts since 1 Apr, 2004 from Et in Arcadia Ego
Yeah, you're talking pure un-optimized code chaos..djastroboy wrote:If you don't like the direction that the WS takes, you just "fork" your own version and do watcha want from there.
Last edited by Sicklecell666 on Mon May 23, 2005 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 1617 posts since 2 Dec, 2003
but output of the code isn't bound by the license, correct? people can still make commercial tracks using a GPL synth...whyterabbyt wrote:jtxx000 quoth
aiui it means that all the source code is released and if anyone downloads and uses that source code in one of their own projects then all that project must be released under GPL.
Almost. If someone redistributes absolutely anything based on the code they've downloaded and used, they have to provide the source to their version of the code.
Last edited by jtxx000 on Mon May 23, 2005 10:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 2935 posts since 14 Dec, 2003 from Edinburgh
$12000 for the code of a product that is already in existence and widely distributed, and not generating enough money for the obviously very talented programmer to keep the business going?
...hmmm...
...hmmm...
-
- KVRian
- 992 posts since 16 Dec, 2002
Actually I think open source could work - after all somehow Linux manages to be a kickass operating system despite the number of cooks involved.
If nothing else, open sourcing it means that it is still a viable platform so people like Manytone still have a chance to sell their products.
I would hope WilliamK would be willing to lower his price if the purchasers agree to open source it ... after all, the purchasers are effectively donating to the community. Surely WK can donate a little bit too ...
Count me in for at least $50 towards open sourcing it (possibly more) ... but I'm not interested in a commercial group buy.
If nothing else, open sourcing it means that it is still a viable platform so people like Manytone still have a chance to sell their products.
I would hope WilliamK would be willing to lower his price if the purchasers agree to open source it ... after all, the purchasers are effectively donating to the community. Surely WK can donate a little bit too ...
Count me in for at least $50 towards open sourcing it (possibly more) ... but I'm not interested in a commercial group buy.