mda plug-ins now open source

[midijor]

alas, only by sitting down and writing it! Having already had a pretty good look through, most of the algorithms are fairly straight forward (if you have some sense of what you are looking at). The best conversion would be more a case of applying the sense of the code, rather than a line by line transcription.

DSP

Thanks a lot for your reply duncanparsons:-)

I'll do...

Best regards

midijor

[ocmtime]

As I don't have time to maintain or develop the "mda" freeware plug-ins any more, but I don't want them to die when 32-bit VST 2.x plug-ins are finally obsolete, I have released the source code:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/mda-vst/

If anyone wants to find and fix bugs, or tidy up the sources into a more generic future-proof format, that would be great. If not, the code is all there and working so for example it would be easy to build 64-bit versions.

It might also be interesting to see how the plug-ins work - maybe they are simpler than you'd expect, as back when these were written every additional line of code had an effect on the CPU meter!


Paul

so now that detune plugin will actually get its non woking knobs ...well ... working ... anyone

[atomota]

As far as I understand it (which is not very far) the MIT license lets you do anything you want, including commercial use. The GPL license is there so that distribution with other purely-GPL software is not ruled out.

Thank you very much for open sourcing this, Paul! I use several mda plugins to this day.

I've been around the GPL a long time, and Steinberg's license for VST for a while, and although people have done it, it's not permitted to release GPL'd code that uses Steinberg's VST SDK. This is because releasing under the GPL requires all the source code, including Steinberg's, to be made available to (practically speaking) everybody, whereas Steinberg allows only its own licensees to have access to the VST SDK code. It's not difficult to get a Steinberg license, but still, the two don't mix.

If you're also releasing under the MIT license then releasing under the GPL is not buying you anything. The GPL allows GPL code to be distributed with non-GPL code. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License

[atomota]

As far as I understand it (which is not very far) the MIT license lets you do anything you want, including commercial use.

I should also add that the GPL license certainly allows commercial use. What the MIT license allows that the GPL does not is proprietary use, where people can take your generously donated code and use it in their own proprietary products without releasing the source to those products, which would be unfortunate.

[Murky]

Most generous and nicely done. Thanks!

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

is today christmas?!

[mda]

atomota: It seems like everyone has a different opinion about open source licenses, so I'm trying to be as flexible as possible - after all, you don't have to use this code with the VST SDK, you could wrap it into anything.

Thanks for pointing out the difference between commercial and proprietary use - it's my intention that this source code can be used in proprietary products.


Paul

[laserbeak]

thanks very much these were some of my first ever VST plugins. I'm very greatful.

[conner_bw]

GPL Compatible Licenses:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-l ... leLicenses

I suggest Artistic License 2.0, Modified BSD license, or Public Domain?

EDIT:

Expat License - This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. It is sometimes ambiguously referred to as the MIT License.

So, MIT it is!

[mn]

Very generous, thanks.

[S-N-S]

it will be interesting to see what people will do with these.

cant wait

[Jafo]

Holy crap -- that means the Piano can become even better! Double thank you!

[Jono-60]

Piano is great!

I would like to see an AU version.

[soma]

!!!!

I hope this doesn't mean no more free plugins from you Paul.

[atomota]

Thanks for pointing out the difference between commercial and proprietary use - it's my intention that this source code can be used in proprietary products.

I fully support your licensing terms. Not that that's worth much.

I should also mention that as the copyright holder, even if you'd licensed only under the GPL (disregarding Steinberg for a moment), you could still use this code for your own proprietary products (you are not bound by the terms on which you license to others), and you could license it to others under terms that allow them to use it in proprietary products. That's not just theory; people/companies actually do that and it's legit. I'm just mentioning this in case anybody is thinking of following your example (hint hint).

Now I think it's time I look into that issue with mda detune that's been bugging me for years