I wasn't aware dual licensing was possible (e.g. GPLv3 + some form of proprietary/commercial license). In that case, it's probably OK, unless he went ahead and released it without 2DaT's permission.Burillo wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 4:32 pmjust because they share a name doesn't mean it's the same software. do you have a source that specifically says that discoDSP OB-xd is based off this open-source project?AdvancedFollower wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 4:27 pmhttps://github.com/2DaT/Obxd/blob/master/license.txtBurillo wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 4:24 pmsource for the claim of OB-Xd being based on GPLv3 software?Greenstorm33 wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 3:24 pm So does anybody with some know-how want to request the source code of the new (payware) OB-Xd for iOS (which as far as I can tell he's obligated to provide since it's a derivative of something licensed under GPL v3) and build and release it for free?
also, discoDSP may have obtained a license to use the source from the original author. for example, if you write a library/program that's GPLv3, i must release my software under GPLv3 if i made use of it, except if i contacted you and you gave me permission to use it under different license terms. the mere fact of something being distributed under GPLv3 doesn't mean every single usage of the code will be covered under GPLv3 - the code may have licensed under a different license from the author, this is allowed (in fact, that's how JUCE works).
Anyway seeking "revenge" on the company for shitty customer service by bringing up dubious licensing arrangements probably won't accomplish much (and there's a dedicated OB-Xd thread as well). However I do wonder whether bamboozling customers of their download/update links is compliant with the original licensing agreement for Bliss, Discovery etc....
Not that I'm going to bother checking. I just uninstalled Discovery Pro so I won't accidentally use it in a project and later find it needs a $29 update due to some OS/DAW update or whatever.
