Obxd synthesizer

[lobanov]

Oops...

What rev of the GPL does that talk about ?

All. In their FAQ they sometimes mention ver. 2 and ver. 3 explicitly. But here they say about GPL w/o version.

[Mutant]

All.

That could only make sense if all the versions meant the same thing.
If they do mean the same thing, then why is there a need for different versions ?

[lobanov]

All.

That could only make sense if all the versions meant the same thing.
If they do mean the same thing, then why is there a need for different versions ?

The different versions have nothing in common?
May be, they are different in something else?

The title of the section in FAQ is "General understanding of the GNU licenses".

[lobanov]

More:

If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then distribute and sell that new program commercially?

You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL.
These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in a program of your own.

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

[aciddose]

Quote from the GPL v2 if you want to argue that. You are wrong and I've already quoted the relevant sections which explicitly disallow charging anything for a license in whole or in part.

Here it is again:

You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

It does not matter what it says in a FAQ. It matters what the contract itself says. One is legally binding, the other is worthless.

The GPL v2 explicitly forbids charging anything for a license. You may charge a fee for distribution but not for the software itself.

[AnX]

we all pay in the end, but you've got to fight the bastards, if only for the sake of our children!

[chk071]

We need a judge in here. Immediately.

[aciddose]

The reason they say "You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL." is that you are not limited in how much you can charge for distribution. This is what makes it possible to ask for $100 for a copy.

Now the terms of the GPL that you must follow:

• You aren't allowed to prohibit reverse-engineering or circumvention of any DRM you add.
• You aren't allowed to add any restrictions on the rights granted to all users of the Program (source-code, binaries or anything related.) This means anyone can copy it and upload it for free distribution to everyone else so long as they also obey the terms of the GPL.
• You must distribute the complete source-code that allows anyone to fully rebuild the binaries you distribute for themselves.

So anyone can use the same source you built the binary with to recompile a version without your DRM or copy protection and then they can upload it for free distribution to everyone along with the source-code.

So while it's technically possible to "sell GPL software commercially", anyone who attempted it would have to be very stupid to think they'd get away with it, or they'd need to be running a con by misleading people about their rights to the software.

In the past software used to be sold as pure source-code up to the point that a United States court found that binaries derived from the source carried the same copyright that the source did (as a written work like a book does, regardless of if you typed it by hand or a publisher made 1000s of copies.)

These days companies don't release source-code because they can release a binary. You don't "own" the software you buy like when you buy a book because they control what you can do with a EULA by restricting your rights and merely "licensing" your copy rather than selling it to you.

The GPL v2 explicitly forbids charging anything for a license fee which means this is not possible for GPL software! You can't apply an EULA that restricts user rights and you are unable to prevent the transfer of rights granted by the GPL to everyone you distribute to.

[swatwork]

@aciddose

How is this any different to what I wrote several pages ago, you know, when I was 'full of shit'?

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.

[Mutant]

How is this any different to what I wrote several pages ago, you know, when I was 'full of shit'?

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.

In the context of other posts at that time, that "for their release" could be understood like you were not talking just about the distribution.
Not defending that "full of" quote here, sure it was a bit too strong - maybe he had a bad day, i don't judge.
This forum is a gentlemans club compared to the other forum about musical instruments i am a member of.

[aciddose]

@aciddose

How is this any different to what I wrote several pages ago, you know, when I was 'full of shit'?

If you meant it that way I apologize and you are not "full of shit" in the same way, but still full of shit in the sense of inaccurate and critically misleading phrasing. If you'd said "nothing stops them from charging for their initial release, although everyone could simply upload that copy anywhere immediately afterward and then ask for a refund or cancel their payment" I would have most likely agreed.

It would be pointless for anyone to actually do that though, which is why they don't do that. If you're asking for donations for your distribution you don't want people downloading it from alternative sources. You can't use an EULA to restrict the rights of anyone and prevent them from uploading or distributing the program themselves. So the best way to remain the single authoritative source for the plug-in is to make the download itself entirely free (no registration, no nag pages, just a simple download link.) That will ensure the most people get to see your "please make a donation" button. Plenty of sites distributing free software even make a window pop up when you click "download" that includes a payment amount set in advance to $10 or similar. The user can then set the amount to $0 and hit "download" and get the download immediately for free, or leave it set and get redirected to a paypal donation page then afterward on to the download itself.

In the case of "Soshi Studio" as far as I'm aware they never provided an opportunity to download for free and also somewhat mislead people by not explaining things before payment. This is why I would consider that they conned people and likely were engaged in paypal fraud if they were collecting "donations" for a purchase or fee which is against paypal's terms of service. I'd hope either way they were declaring their income for tax purposes too... it's entirely possible they did so in an entirely honest way and were only "accidentally misleading". That type of behavior either way is obviously frowned upon.

There is no such thing as a GPL "pirate". Under the terms of a copy-left license like GPL v2 the roles are reversed. The "pirate" is the one asking money or breaking the terms of the license (refusing to provide source or limiting user freedom) while the person who uploads the file + source to some distribution site like megaupload or creates a torrent is actually the good guy. So free software authors do not want to provide an opportunity for a robin-hood character to take all the credit for their work. That is why you almost never see "commercial free software" in real life.

What then is the purpose of making such an exception in the GPL? It's to allow GPL software to be distributed along side commercial products. For example you can have Linux (under GPL v2) installed on a PC you buy which also includes commercial software. The "mere aggregation of works on a storage medium" doesn't make the complete package infringing. So that is most of the reason they say "yes, you can sell GPL software commercially so long as you do so under the terms of the GPL." Usually in real cases the users can download Linux from 100s of different places for free already, and you're only selling a PC, not Linux itself. You can charge a fee to "install linux" but not for Linux and you can't add any license terms or restrict users from making an image (.iso, whatever) and offering it for free download anywhere they like.

Note that ultimately even if you're sold free software for an outrageous price, it's entirely up to you to cancel the payment or sue to get your money back. (Since it is impossible to "return" the software which you don't "own" and not possible to charge for a license, there was no valid consideration in your contract unless it explicitly stated that the charge was not for the software but "a download fee".) Ultimately copy-left licenses are not for the benefit of the user, as much as you do see that claimed. They're for the benefit of the author (mostly) and programmers in general (less so to not at all.) The user obviously gets the software "free as in beer", and possibly care about being able to redistribute that copy but they likely don't care about having the freedom to access the source-code and build and distribute their own version "free as in speech". There is no way to enforce the terms of the GPL unless you're an author who was involved in writing the software which the infringing work is based upon. So if the author doesn't act as the "GPL police", users are absolutely powerless. A distributor could simply refuse to provide the source and nobody but the original author whose rights had been infringed could do anything about it.

That is why being well informed about your rights is critical.

[Stringzy]

I'm humbly inquiring if the developer has recovered from brain damage caused by frequent use of acid doses?

[Halonmusic]

I'm humbly inquiring if the developer has recovered from brain damage caused by frequent use of acid doses?

[felis]

Can anyone summarize the 236 pages of this thread. Is there a new Obdx version coming out or something?

[swatwork]

Can anyone summarize the 236 pages of this thread. Is there a new Obdx version coming out or something?

I don't know about the whole thread but somewhere around page 231 discoDSP hinted they were working on an ios version, and much hilarity ensued.