Obxd synthesizer

[aciddose]

Well, I don't like to see people spreading bullshit. Wipe it up with your copy of the GPL if you aren't going to bother to read it.

planetearth either misspoke or has no idea what they are saying.

DiscoDSP is allowed to keep the stuff they add "private"

That statement only makes sense if you're talking about 100% independent parts. If they add code along with the original GPL source (new filters, etc) or make any modifications and distribute it to anyone, they must license it under the GPL.

So yes, they can "keep" their original work and put it in other products under a difference license. Once they release any version of OBXD though, it's 100% free to anyone to redistribute or use according to the terms of the GPL license and they (DiscoDSP) are obligated to fulfill all the terms of the license including releasing 100% of the source-code.

[Stringzy]

So we get to get V2 for free, after all.

Thank you, good night.

[planetearth]

That's what I was trying to say, and in editing the points I was trying to make (new, "independent" parts/things/features DiscoDSP added, compared to the synth as a whole), it appears I conflated them.

That said, there are ways of disagreeing with people without being disagreeable, @aciddose--though I've no doubt you've heard that from the mods plenty of times. It's not as if I insulted you or suggested you don't have "the reading comprehension" to understand something.

Steve

[swatwork]

The code that discoDSP based 'their' version on was licensed under the GNU GPL which requires that any derived work MUST also be licensed under the same GPL license. So any code additions made since then must be made available when any updated version of the synth is released.

There's nothing to stop discoDSP charging money for their release but they are legally obliged to make the source code it's based on available to anyone who wants it, and there's nothing to stop anyone else creating their own compiled versions and redistributing them.

https://github.com/reales/OB-Xd

Perhaps we will soon see a latest commit date more recent than Jan 23, 2017.

[aciddose]

That's what I was trying to say, (new, "independent" parts/things/features DiscoDSP added, compared to the synth as a whole),

Which might make sense... only if those independent parts:

• Aren't distributed along with OBXD
• Don't use/derive from any of the GPL implementation (preset format, GUI skins, etc)
• Are entirely separate and have nothing to do with the original GPL work(s)

So I'm not sure there is any possibility of creating anything that isn't derived. Certainly it isn't possible to "add" something to the plug-in without it also being released under GPL. It's impossible to do that and explicitly against the terms of the license.

For example it isn't possible to create a "plug-in" for new filter modes and have OBXD load it. When they're combined into a single functional unit ("linked" by loading the filter plug-in) they become the same "whole" work. So such a filter plug-in must be also released as GPL or it isn't meeting the terms of the license when you distribute it or link it.

For example it's possible to create a generic interface and then sell "expansions", but the interface itself also needs to be licensed under GPL. So for example if it was possible to load VST effect plug-ins that would be fine, but 100% of the VST interface would need to also be distributed as a part of the OBXD source-code. This is only allowed when the functionality is not related to the core purpose/function of the GPL work, otherwise it's considered a violation.

For example no non-free host could ever distribute OBXD as a host plug-in because it isn't allowed to link GPL source into proprietary applications. It's possible to independently distribute the two things but it must be left up to the user to actually load the plug-in into the host.

So in other words it's simply impossible to add any sort of core functionality to the plug-in without it also being GPL.

[aciddose]

There's nothing to stop discoDSP charging money for their release

That's only partially true. It isn't allowed to charge for the license itself but it is allowed to charge a reasonable fee for the distribution. For example you might charge a couple dollars to mail a CD and that's 100% fine. You might require a few cents to download the plug-in from your site (although not reasonably!), but that wouldn't be possible at all when on KVR or similar. It isn't allowed to implement a "serial key" or anything similar and charge for the key/license.

So practically speaking, no, the GPL explicitly forbids charging for "their release".

See here:

Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

[aciddose]

...

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.

This means if you have a program that generates random numbers and works entirely well 100% separate from any other part, that can be distributed independently under another separate license and doesn't fall under the terms of the GPL.

But...

But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.

This means you aren't allowed to package the two components together and make either of the depend upon the other. Once you do the whole work falls under the terms of the GPL.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.

This means if you simply download a plug-in and load it into a GPL host, that doesn't make the plug-in a part of the host and the GPL doesn't apply to that plug-in. It would have needed to have been either installed along with / as a part of the host, or the host would need to depend upon the plug-in being there to operate at its full capacity.

[aciddose]

Also it looks like OBXD uses GPL v3 in most of the releases I've been able to find, so I'm willing to assume it always did from the original release.

This doesn't mean anything very important although there are some minor changes and clarifications in v3 compared to v2.

The source-code however found here 2DaT's version and here reales's version contains this header:

/*
==============================================================================
This file is part of Obxd synthesizer.
Copyright © 2013-2014 Filatov Vadim

Contact author via email :
justdat_@_e1.ru
This file may be licensed under the terms of of the
GNU General Public License Version 2 (the ``GPL'').
Software distributed under the License is distributed
on an ``AS IS'' basis, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either
express or implied. See the GPL for the specific language
governing rights and limitations.
You should have received a copy of the GPL along with this
program. If not, go to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
or write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.
==============================================================================
*/

The important part being:

This file may be licensed under the terms of of the
GNU General Public License Version 2 (the ``GPL'').

This does not contain the text "any later version", so this is explicitly requiring GPL v2 and the inclusion of the v3 license may be in error since it isn't allowed to distribute this source or any derivatives under any other license. It absolutely must be under GPL v2 only.

See here:

The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

[AnX]

thanks for the info

[swatwork]

There's nothing to stop discoDSP charging money for their release

That's only partially true. It isn't allowed to charge for the license itself but it is allowed to charge a reasonable fee for the distribution. For example you might charge a couple dollars to mail a CD and that's 100% fine. You might require a few cents to download the plug-in from your site (although not reasonably!), but that wouldn't be possible at all when on KVR or similar. It isn't allowed to implement a "serial key" or anything similar and charge for the key/license.

So practically speaking, no, the GPL explicitly forbids charging for "their release".

See here:

Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

By 'release', I mean the binary versions of Obxd, not the source. What you describe here applies to the source code, but not the compiled binary releases.

The GPL is a source code license and dictates the terms under which the code itself must be received, modified and redistributed. It has no jurisdiction over any binaries that may be created from said source code; those are 'owned' by whoever creates them and may be distrubuted under whatever terms they prefer, as long as the source that was used to create them is made available at the same time.

[aciddose]

What you describe here applies to the source code, but not the compiled binary releases.

You need to quote the portion of the GPL v2 that states that. You are 100% wrong. I'm all too well aware that the vast majority of people are completely clueless about copyright and contract law. I'd feel depressed reading the misinformed stuff you say if I had any capacity to care about your personal well-being left over from my idealistic youth.

[planetearth]

Jesus. That was completely unnecessary.

Nothing in what @swatwork said was a personal attack on you, @aciddose. He wasn't rude--he wasn't even mildly impolite! And you felt the need to respond with "I'd feel depressed reading the misinformed stuff you say if I had any capacity to care about your personal well-being...." Seriously?! WTF is wrong with you?!

You like to make it appear that you know all about copyright and license law.

That's great. Really great. Good for you. We're all happy for you. Really. We are.

But you know what? It doesn't matter. If DiscoDSP charges for the synth when they shouldn't, or doesn't charge when they could, so what? No one will die. No one will get hurt. There's absolutely NO reason to be as rude as you have been about this. You're not saving any lives here...or in any other thread where you're equally rude to people.

Maybe it's time for the mods to lock this thread, before @aciddose attacks someone else.

Steve

[AnX]

over sensitive much?

[aciddose]

"... rude to people." :gasp:

You should know this by reading my posts: I have little to no patience for bullshit anymore. When someone starts spouting bullshit and making misleading and willfully ignorant assertions about something they clearly know nothing about I'm less inclined to be friendly and patient and more inclined to assume they're actively casting out bait.

Plenty of people are stupid and misinformed (100% ignorant, often enough) to the point they constantly get themselves into serious trouble with contracts and agreements. I'd feel sorry for those people if I honestly had the capacity to; which I do not. Honestly speaking if they can manage to get themselves into serious enough trouble that they simply cease to exist I'll be perfectly satisfied that nature has taken its horrific natural course.

When people make misleading false assertions about a subject in a public forum however they are not just harming themselves but potentially harming others. I do not just find this humorous like watching someone shoot themselves in the foot, I find it extremely offensive as if the barrel were intentionally pointed my way.

Anyone can read the GPL, I linked it earlier. If you want to make a statement about the GPL or the implications of its clauses according to contract law: directly quote the GPL and the law to support your assertions.

Otherwise you're simply full of shit.

[zzz00m]

Wow. Somebody on the internet was wrong. Sound the alarm!