CLAP: The New Audio Plug-in Standard (by U-he, Bitwig and others)

[EnGee]

Thanks a lot for the explanation

[Hammy Havoc]

So, can u-he/Bitwig/Alexandre close or change the license of this project whenever they want?

The short answer to this is "no".

The code as it sits now is MIT code and you can get it and keep it MIT forever.

The longer answer is a bit longer. But this is a complicated topic and people form heated and incorrect opinions easily, so please do read carefully and respond politely!

The core of the answer is: Even if someone did make a copy of the code with a different license, that would be explicitly pointless.

First of all the prior copy would still be MIT licensed so the rest of us could ignore them.

Secondly, that would just be dumb. Why?

MIT means you can modify software and include it in closed source applications and not tell anyone. It is not "contagious" and can be included in closed source programs without peril.

This is precisely why almost every *standard* (as opposed to *product*) uses either MIT, ISC (sort of the european MIT), BSD or Apache 2 license. They allow you to make closed source "derivatives". But for standards that is critical - if Urs had to open source Diva to use CLAP he never would.

So again, this does mean that someone could take CLAP and make a copy with serious modifications and not release them. Tomorrow I could release surge with my own special secret CLAP which is totally different. But since CLAP is an interoperability standard that would be rather pointless. It wouldn't load in MultitrackStudio or QTractor or Bitwig. So my secret modification just wouldn't be fit for purpose.

Its sort of like you could change the ends on every hose in your garden secretly. But then you couldn't water your plants.

If you do a quick survey of open source licenses for standards in other industries, you find that they reach the same decision CLAP has. Namely you need to have a standard which isn't owned by a single market participant and is licensed so it can be accessed freely by all participants without encumbering their subsequent software. CLAP has made those choices.

MIT is also useful for libraries. For instance, the tuning library I wrote which provides the microtonal support in surge, dexed, odin2, bespoke, and more is MIT licensed so closed source programs can use it. And they do. I did that so that people could get accurate SCL/KBM -> Frequency. Because that's hard and I like instruments to have that.

This stance - or being a standard - is also having technical consequences on how the CLAP team works. On launch day, Alex changed the free-audio repo so that he can't merge without review by a few reviewers (there's some GitHub mechanics here which I will leave out). Full disclosure: I am an open source dev and I *am* one of the reviewers. But I'm not a u-he or bitwig employee.

There *are* other sorts of licenses, the most famous of which is GPL3. GPL3 says (roughly) that a derived work (which in this case would be a plugin that uses CLAP) has to also be open source. That is a very useful way to make something open source if you don't want it included in a closed source product. For instance, if you wrote an amazing filter and you didn't want it in diva, you could licenses it GPL3 and diva couldn't use it without being open source. That's kinda nice for "product" like things but really terrible for "standards" type things, as I'm sure you can imagine.

Finally, we designed clap so that you can make proprietary extensions. That's in the API. They are namespaces, segregated, etc... If someone wants to make one which is closed source only, they can. A clap has a mechanism to address it. It can compete in the marketplace of ideas. We shall see. But every single core feature you have seen from CLAP has all been open source.

I haven't really read the comments by the troll guy. I'm fast with a block button so I can get back to coding stuff to help people make music. But the idea that MIT would let you make a closed souce product based on top of a library is precisely what you want in a standard for interoperable software. The idea that you could make your own incompatible copy of the standard is true. but then you wouldn't implement the standard and couldn't interoperate.

Hope that helps!

Very eloquent, and glad you mentioned proprietary extensions. Lots of room for innovation from companies that typically ship closed source software. No downsides, everybody wins.

[wilkins_micawber]

It's a shame the designers of this didn't give more thought to the name.

https://urs.silvrback.com/clap

Clap was not slang for an STD when I was in high school in the US, and i'm 32. If it was it certainly was only what the dorks called the disease. I would not consider it an immediate association to have with the term.

[Scotty]

It's a shame the designers of this didn't give more thought to the name.

https://urs.silvrback.com/clap

Clap was not slang for an STD when I was in high school in the US, and i'm 32. If it was it certainly was only what the dorks called the disease. I would not consider it an immediate association to have with the term.

Clap is on almost every analog drum machine, it is what we do to show appreciation of a performance and accompany a performance. It is first a musical expression. Of all the things to hang your head in sorrow over, this one doesn't remotely qualify.

[Hink]

+1

[EnGee]

[Music Engineer]

Yeah, I really don't get it. I only signed up to GitHub two days ago, I wouldn't have clue as to how to take down the repo, nor do I have the rights to do that.

I actually don't want any of what that guy is taking.

...and even if someone would take down the original repo - that wouldn't affect any copy/mirror/fork that someone else would have in their own repo in any way. They could just keep using it and even the original authors could not stop them from doing so. So what this guy there is talking about "re-licensing" seems like nonsense. Sure, you can apply a new license to any derivative work - but not to the original code. ...if I'm getting this right

[jamcat]

Stop lying, Bill Gates and Soros is behind CLAP, you are exposed

Bill Gates was behind DX. Study it out, bro.

[toddbooster]

It's a shame the designers of this didn't give more thought to the name.

https://urs.silvrback.com/clap

Clap was not slang for an STD when I was in high school in the US, and i'm 32. If it was it certainly was only what the dorks called the disease. I would not consider it an immediate association to have with the term.

When referring to Gonorrhea colloquially the term is specifically "The Clap".

Edit: I'll add that I agree it's probably fallen out of fashion these days.

[Urs]

Us developers are less prone to be affected by such associations as for instance STD typically means "standard".

I found a way to not be annoyed by such comments anymore by quietly thinking that people whom make the joke are probably speaking from experience.

[jamcat]

Computer programmers don’t generally have to worry about STDs.

[moss]

Thanks the explanations which surely helps people who do not deal with that complex topic on a daily basis!

MIT means you can modify software and include it in closed source applications and not tell anyone. It is not "contagious" and can be included in closed source programs without peril.

A slight correction to that, the last part "and not tell anyone" is not correct, you always have to include the copright notice in your software:

"The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."

There *are* other sorts of licenses, the most famous of which is GPL3. GPL3 says (roughly) that a derived work (which in this case would be a plugin that uses CLAP) has to also be open source.

Specifically GPLv3 as well.

That is a very useful way to make something open source if you don't want it included in a closed source product. For instance, if you wrote an amazing filter and you didn't want it in diva, you could licenses it GPL3 and diva couldn't use it without being open source. That's kinda nice for "product" like things but really terrible for "standards" type things, as I'm sure you can imagine.

The term "dual licensing" should be added to that as well. This is a strategy many "open source companies" follow, which means you can get their code in two ways:
1) as GPLv3, which means you have to GPLv3 all your work as well. Which is mostly not exceptable for companies.
2) therefore, you can get (often for money) a different license which allows you to integrate it into closed source as well.

This is the way how Steinberg handles VST3. The closed source license is, up to my knowledge, free but you have to sign their license agreement, which contains the highly discussed paragraph that they can take down your license with a 6 month notice.

[fedexnman]

Computer programmers don’t generally have to worry about STDs.

yeah that's what antivirus softwares for lolz

[Urs]

This is the way how Steinberg handles VST3. The closed source license is, up to my knowledge, free but you have to sign their license agreement, which contains the highly discussed paragraph that they can take down your license with a 6 month notice.

Correction: It can be terminated effective immediately for "good cause" (§9.5), which is up to Steinberg to define (e.g. promote competing product, publish bug in VST3 design?), or 14 days (§9.4) if they assess that e.g. a bug in your code is breach of contact.

[Urs]

Computer programmers don’t generally have to worry about STDs.

yeah that's what antivirus softwares for lolz

As mute is my catnip, I rely on such quotes to entertain summaries of the artificial outrage.

For programmers, STD stands for "standard". We're happy with that. Musicians have also survived *snicker* aftertouch *snicker*, and a whole generation has learned to embrace Nintendo Wii despite *hahaha* what *bwahahaahahah* that *haaaarrrrghs* sounds like *yodel*.

We also just learned that "the clap" is a very dorky term nowadays, used only by people who out themselves as, well, maybe a generation that'll retire too soon to see CLAP thrive.

As such, the team that put together CLAP has done the right choices, because each feature was designed with the question "will this last 40 years?", and so, with dorks growing long white beards, CLAP will be fine.