Charlatan v1.4.1 - free VA synth (Win VSTi 32-/64-bit)

[jsp1979]

If you have permission from the developer (with the guidelines above), then what more do you need?

Serious question.

[DrewDale]

No problem, all links have been removed to the ones I have created, I have no intention of violating anyone's terms / licence / conditions.

[jsp1979]

The developer says you can distribute your hacked .dll.

Again, what's the problem?

[DrewDale]

The developer says you can distribute your hacked .dll.

Again, what's the problem?

z.prime seems to think otherwise.

[jsp1979]

The developer says you can distribute your hacked .dll.

Again, what's the problem?

z.prime seems to think otherwise.

z.prime is wrong, quite frankly.

I'm trying to figure out why he feels that written permission from the developer is not sufficient.

The license is to protect the developer, so if the developer gives permission to disregard a clause, it's certainly within the rights of the developer to do it.

[Doc Brown]

Thanks anyway Drew. Great skin.

[z.prime]

z.prime is wrong, quite frankly.
I'm trying to figure out why he feels that written permission from the developer is not sufficient.

Perhaps you misunderstand. The license prohibits modification. It seems that the developer doesn't care, and has indicated in a forum post at some point in the past that modification, at least for the purposes of changing the skin is allowed along with redistribution provided the appropriate documentation is included (I also didn't know this bit until Dale pointed it out).

However, a developer is free to change the licensing terms of his product at any time. If a developer decides to modify said terms to now prohibit this redistribution, how would he do that? It already prohibits modification & redistribution... My point is the license terms should be updated to indicate this exception to the modification & redistribution clauses, not really so much that anything bad will happen (which really would only be the developer sending a cease and desist request, followed by a lawsuit if he/she cared enough and redistribution didn't stop).

[BlackWinny]

Kind of contradicts what it says on page #1 though

"- I don't like the GUI color. Can I replace the GUI skin?
Yes, you may use a Resource Editor to replace the image in the DLL. I even allow you to share your hacked DLL as long as you distribute it along with the original readme/license files and a clear note that this is not the original version and point people to the place where they can find the original."

So there's no problem. You can republish. You just have to zip it, with:

1. The dll containing the new GUI
2. The original file of the license (which is in the original zip file of the product).
3. The link to the post where the developer wrote that declaration that you can distribute a version with a GUI of your own.
4. A little txt file explaining in one or two lines that this zip contains a dll applying this declaration of the developer.
5. And of course a link to his website, by kindness.

That's all!
And there will be no problem at all.

[jsp1979]

My claim is that this minor point is, well, pointless.

It's 100% clear that the developer doesn't care, period. It's in writing in the first post.

So, you're claiming it's possible the developer will wait for Drew to post links and then try to legally go after him even though *in his own words in this post, the developer says it's fine to redistribute*??!?

This is easily the most twilight zone moment I've had in my 6+ years at KVR.

[BlackWinny]

And don't worry, all that will never drive anybody to the judge. At the worse (in such cases of course, not in case of real acts of piracy) the developer asks you to remove the links, that's all. And in cases like this one, as soon as the developer has posted a declaration allowing the modification of the GUI in the DLL there are absolutely no problems at all.

[z.prime]

So, you're claiming it's possible the developer will wait for Drew to post links and then try to legally go after him

Wow, not even close to what I said.

[BlackWinny]

My claim is that this minor point is, well, pointless.

It's 100% clear that the developer doesn't care, period. It's in writing in the first post.

So, you're claiming it's possible the developer will wait for Drew to post links and then try to legally go after him even though *in his own words in this post, the developer says it's fine to redistribute*??!?

This is easily the most twilight zone moment I've had in my 6+ years at KVR.

Oh I've known much worse than that. And never from developers! Always from users who have absolutely nothing to do with the developer! Even here on the KVR forums I've had very boring discussions with users who are especially maniac with the license terms (whilst freeware!), users who behave in a much more authoritarian way that the developers themselves. I've never had any problems with the developers, here as well as elsewhere!

[jsp1979]

So, you're claiming it's possible the developer will wait for Drew to post links and then try to legally go after him

Wow, not even close to what I said.

Sigh. I know what you're saying. You want the unofficial EULA (with the new modification) to match the official EULA. I get it.

However, legal issues are the only reason this minor point makes any difference whatsoever. You even mention such things in your post. Your beef is with the developer. Contact him about updating his EULA if it keeps you up at night.

Via the first post, Drew has permission to post the files as long as he follows the instructions there.

[BlackWinny]

So, you're claiming it's possible the developer will wait for Drew to post links and then try to legally go after him

Wow, not even close to what I said.

Sigh. I know what you're saying. You want the unofficial EULA (with the new modification) to match the official EULA. I get it.

However, legal issues are the only reason this minor point makes any difference whatsoever. You even mention such things in your post. Your beef is with the developer. Contact him about updating his EULA if it keeps you up at night.

Via the first post, Drew has permission to post the files as long as he follows the instructions there.

And there is no other interpretation possible of what he wrote in that post. It is perfectly clear.

[Teksonik]

All this could be avoided if the developer would just expose the GUI files to the user like a lot of other plugins that can be skinned do. Then there is no need to hack the .dll and also changing skins will be a lot easier as well as creating new ones..........