Matt Tytel makes Vital Open source!!

[gnu23]

Proud to have helped out in a small way, buying the Pro version.
Great job, Matt. Good on ya'!

[Tj Shredder]

The way he has set it up does leave the existing business model intact, but would give him the opportunity to bring it to the app store for example, or someone would do that work for him and he can monetize by handing out a license which would allow that. It could also free him from implementing all the features others demand but he is not interested in. He will be less under pressure to fulfill
“professional” expectations that way and just keep the fun part...
I would say its a smart move we will see more often in the future. Its a move to a gift society which is mich more relaxed than our annoying deal society...
Claes releasing Surge open source is a bit similar. It let his older child survive. How else could that have been possible? The secrets within the code are not so much secrets anyway. All devs cook with water in the end and innovation is moving faster if we exchange our knowledge...

[Held]

sorry for the noobish question, but is open source really a superior solution?
Will there now be dozens of different Vitals available, all with different feature sets to each other?
Will there be one single source where you can find them/it? Or will they be scattered around the interwebz?

Take Blender, for example. It's been open source for almost over 20 years, and there is only one version with many contributors, and it's gaining a lot of traction in the commercial world right now.

Usually, there is one main version of an open source project and everyone contributes there. Splits only happen when the owner screws up in some way (see Open Office vs Libre Office for example).

On the other hand, Matt doesn't seem to be open to any third party contributions, so there's a good chance for a derived project under another name.

I don't understand why he released the code if he doesn't want any contributions. Maybe he wants to sell commercial licenses?

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

I don't understand why he released the code if he doesn't want any contributions. Maybe he wants to sell commercial licenses?

Maybe just to show folks who may be interested how the sausage was made. Like "hey, if you want to see how I handle the GUI code, take a look..." for example. Or "if you're interested in making changes and doing a fork, then whatever, go for it!"

[Held]

That would be the most obvious explanation. But are there really people who are this nice? I would hope so, but I have my doubts.

[mtytel]

sorry for the noobish question, but is open source really a superior solution?
Will there now be dozens of different Vitals available, all with different feature sets to each other?
Will there be one single source where you can find them/it? Or will they be scattered around the interwebz?

The source availability doesn't actually change much in terms of development. The Vital brand/logo/etc stays with me and I'm not taking any outside contributions. There will only ever be one "Vital"

As for forks, there may be one that is a 'libre' flavor similar to 'Chrome' vs 'Chromium' browsers that will mirror the code base but removes dependencies on non open source libraries.

It's possible after a few years there will someone or a group or people who have enough experience with the code base and enough knowledge of audio dsp, graphic design, etc to make real meaningful improvements to a fork of Vital. If that happened I'd probably offer them a job.

As a side note, it also doesn't change my current business plan. All the paid content isn't in that source (source is basically the free version of Vital). It does make business to business code licensing deals easier though, e.g. if a company wants to license an effect from Vital they can just try out the code before contacting me for a license.

[mtytel]

I don't understand why he released the code if he doesn't want any contributions. Maybe he wants to sell commercial licenses?

The main reason is that I license code to proprietary projects and I need to be the sole copyright owner to sell an exception to the GPL.

Another big reason is it takes time to vet a developer. If you need work done on your house you don't let any stranger walking by with a hammer start swinging on your shingles.

[Super Piano Hater 64]

I don't understand why he released the code if he doesn't want any contributions. Maybe he wants to sell commercial licenses?

The main reason is that I license code to proprietary projects and I need to be the sole copyright owner to sell an exception to the GPL.

This particular issue could also be solved by requiring contributors to assign copyright to you (as either an individual or an organization). The GNU project has the same requirement, though it's for different reasons.

Vetting contributors, on the other hand, is a problem that can only be solved by putting in a bunch of work on an ongoing basis. That's part of why so many developers only open source their work when they're totally done with a project.

[simmo75]

Hi MAtt,
Will you continue to keep supporting the Pro version with updates?

[mtytel]

Hi MAtt,
Will you continue to keep supporting the Pro version with updates?

Yep! I'll be adding more content to it at some point and will have some new features that Pro users and subscribers will get first. Currently working on some new spectral warp modes but I'm at the point where they're really fun so I lose a bunch of work hours playing with it :/

[mtytel]

[duplicate post]

[plexuss]

I hate open source. Glad Matt isnt planning to make Vital full bore open source.

[zvenx]

I definitely don't hate open source, and I am very grateful that Surge didn't die, because of Claes making it open source and baconpaul and his team of volunteers.

My concern will be the entitled ones who will scream that all developers should or MUST follow this model. Cause it is good marketing blah blah blah. And to do otherwise would make them money grabbing etc etc.

rsp

[seazens_mediuube]

this is quite a good surprise!! Transformation of software via source code seems to often mirror natural evolution; new and meaningful changes could still be happening ten, twenty, even thirty and fourty years from now!

[Super Piano Hater 64]

I hate open source. Glad Matt isnt planning to make Vital full bore open source.

That's understandable. Open source has inflicted uncountable evils on the world. If you're up for sharing some cautionary tales, I'd like to hear about the specific ways it has hurt you.