Obxd synthesizer

[Halonmusic]

Not rude. Right

Why youre not banned yet is beyond me

Because using the words "you are full of shit" when someone is full of shit is not against the rules or even discouraged at all. I said it more politely at first until someone got emotional about what I said, repeated what I said by re-phrasing it in a near identical way and then suggested I should be banned for it.

Why are you so emotional about basic contract law? It seems to make you very upset that OBXD is free software.

You know you could say something like 'Im sorry but you are wrong' instead of 'Full of shit'. Easy right? My bet is that you like to harass people on forums. And you are getting away with it every time. And no im not emotional about basic contract law. Im fed up with your behavior.

[aciddose]

can mods take this gpl discussion elsewhere please?

oops, sorry, there are no mods on kvr.

I assure you there are mods on KVR and they do a fair job both at moderation and selecting cases where action is necessary. You should appreciate that they're fully capable of doing so.

Why would mods move very important information about the fact that OBXD is and will forever remain free software?

They'd need to constantly police the thread to remove any posts suggesting it isn't, which is honestly a lot of work and rather frustrating. I'm also a bit annoyed that for people like you (and myself) who are watching the thread, we constantly get notifications when someone posts some speculative nonsense. So I'm sure you'd prefer me to have simply ignored their posts, but you need to realize that the whole reason I've repeated this process of stating the facts several times in this thread when the subject comes up is because I want to only hear about useful information too.

So I feel your pain even if I'm currently partially to blame for it. Sorry for that, but I hope those who read the facts I share benefit from them and understand that OBXD is free and always will be; period.

[carrieres]

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#section6
What the interweb understand is that we can sell gpl software if it is provided with full source code
https://www.techrepublic.com/blog/linux ... -software/
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to ... l-use-only
you have an example with two linux distribution centOS and RedHat which share the same source code
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS

[aciddose]

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#section6
What the interweb understand is that we can sell gpl software if it is provided with full source code

Note that OBXD is licensed under GPL v2, so you'll need to see what I've already posted that proves you are wrong. It is not legal to sell GPL v2 software for any amount. I've just finished quoting where the GPL v2 explicitly states that.

I don't care what misinformed people believe. I care about facts. If you want to prove the GPL v2 and its explicit prohibition of sale of derived works (in whole or in part) is not valid law, you need to link some case where the court found that and found for the defense that they were non-infringing when selling a product based upon GPL v2 works.

[Halonmusic]

Please leave this thread Acid.

[mcbpete]

Why would mods move very important information about the fact that OBXD is and will forever remain free software?

True, except when idiots like me get swindled when things like this happen:

Today I received a curious email informing that a fork has been made.

The guy uses the nickname "twodat20" (very similar to 2DaT, it makes confusion), and this fork is distributed by a company that I don't know, named Soshi Studio.

https://soshistudio.wordpress.com/

The "Mac download" works. But the "Windows Download" doesn't, so it seems that to get it on Windows it is needed to pay. To get it the visitor seems to MUST use the button "Donate". So of course it is not a donation... it is a purchase!

15 dollars (13 euros).

I'm not interested at all, and even I wonder if it is really legal. Especially with that confusion between the nicknames.

[aciddose]

That's exactly the reason (the soshi studio guy) I find this clarification of facts important. It's very misleading that the project has the GPL v3 "license" file in the root of the source tree! If people are allowed to mistakenly think it is allowed to distribute sell for a fee, exactly the same thing could happen again.

I wonder how many people got conned in that situation? There is sadly no way to tell and 2DaT might not even have any way to find out even if he sued and won. Individual "customers" could at best make a complaint with paypal or similar back then.

It is possible that 2DaT could re-license the code as GPL v3, but there is zero doubt that the original code is under GPL v2. So nobody should be paying anyone any amount of money for the plug-in based on the original source, ever, unless they charge you $1.50 or similar to mail you the CD. It is possible the next version is re-licensed using non-free licenses if the original GPL v2 source had no outside contributors but you need to clearly understand that and your rights when you make any purchase.

edit: strikethrough and correction of my wording in the first paragraph to satisfy complaint. Note that a preamble is like a foreward in a book. You can't be making an accurate judgement based upon the forward/preamble and to my knowledge it has no legal effect like a proper clause does. The preamble is merely to give you a rough impression before you read the complete contract. Judging a contract based upon the preamble would be like writing a book-report based upon the foreward or back cover; you'll probably get an F.

[swatwork]

It is not legal to sell GPL v2 software for any amount. I've just finished quoting where the GPL v2 explicitly states that.

Paragraph 4 of the GPL v2 Preamble:

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

[Mutant]

Paragraph 4 of the GPL v2 Preamble:

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

The fee is for distribution, not for the program itself.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

So just to loop this back to topic at hand, sounds like: even if DiscoDSP goes forward and releases an iOS version of OB-XD based on any of the original GPL v2 licensed code, that iOS instrument would have to be free and open source. Or, they'd be in violation of the GPL agreement. Is that accurate?

[Mutant]

So just to loop this back to topic at hand, sounds like: even if DiscoDSP goes forward and releases an iOS version of OB-XD based on any of the original GPL v2 licensed code, that iOS instrument would have to be free and open source. Or, they'd be in violation of the GPL agreement. Is that accurate?

Yep.
He could put a donation box on his page to cover distribution (web hosting in this case) costs though.

[maxym.srpl]

Interesting discussion TBH.
Is there any authority which can undermine a distribution price? IMO a distribution costs must not be equal to real costs, but can contain a handling fee. This way the price can way bigger than raw costs. Isn't it true?

[aciddose]

Interesting discussion TBH.
Is there any authority which can undermine a distribution price? IMO a distribution costs must not be equal to real costs, but can contain a handling fee. This way the price can way bigger than raw costs. Isn't it true?

The GPL v2 doesn't limit what you charge for distribution but it does limit your ability to restrict the rights of anyone who gains access to a copy. So if someone charged a million dollars for distributing a copy you could simply order the copy and then request a refund and cancel your payment.

It would be up to the courts to determine what the distributor could reasonably ask and you may be ordered to pay that reasonable fee to cover the distributor's genuine cost.

After you had your copy you would be free to upload or make copies anywhere you like and distribute them including by making a new plug-in page here on KVR and uploading the plug-in there. The author who charged the fee would have no right to restrict your freedom in doing so.

The GPL v2 does limit what you can charge for a copy of the source-code:

You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

So once you acquired your copy you'd be entitled to the source-code no matter what and you could then satisfy your obligations when re-distributing the source as part of the distribution along with the plug-in.

So the GPL v2 doesn't obligate authors to release their work or the source, but once they do they're forced to offer the source for only the actual cost to copy it. When on a website this means it would cost a fraction of a cent which would get rounded down to zero. Anyone could legally circumvent any fee imposed for the initial distribution (forcing the author to sue for true cost if non-zero,) which means any author that attempted this would be have to be very stupid.

[lobanov]

Oops...

Misinformed (and ignorant) people from Free Software Foundation say:

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my distribution site?
Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en ... AllowMoney

[Mutant]

Oops...

What rev of the GPL does that talk about ?