Obxd synthesizer

[Vortifex]

..

[george]

@Luka_Kostii: FYI artwork from discoDSP OB-Xd are copyrighted by their authors: one by Ilkka Rosma (licensed to discoDSP), another by Rin Elyran and three from discoDSP.

[audiojunkie]

Guys! This is simple! You are making it too complicated! Here are the simple rules:

1. The software is open source, Yay! YOU can do anything you want to with the source code, as long as you obey the GPL. You can compile it yourself and use it in any way the GPL license allows—even commercially. You can even get a developer friend to compile it for you for free if you want. It’s open source, and George has provided years of improvements at his own cost to continue developing it. I’m grateful!

2. Open Source allows a business model. Yes, it is perfectly ok to make money on the product, as long as the source code is provided for everyone—which, as mentioned above, you can legally compile yourself and have a fully functional plugin, and use it commercially. But, you have to do it yourself or get a friend to do it for you.

3. George is charging for the work of compiling the binaries, development, and support. He has always done so.

4. George went to the original developer and worked out a license with that developer that further protects him legally and allows him the right to manage the binaries, that he creates, how he sees fit. In this case, he has added the stipulation that unless you pay, the binaries that he has created cannot be used for commercial purposes. Once you pay, you are legally able to use the binaries in commercial productions. Remember, these are the binaries that George has compiled where these stipulations take effect. There is little difference between this and shareware—except, you have the added benefit of having legal access to the source code, which you can legally compile yourself and use in commercial products with no problem, as long as you obey the GPL.

5. George’s business model has not changed. There’s nothing shady to it. This is the way open source works, and it has always been this way. Look at the Ardour business model. Look at the Zrhythm business model. Look at every open source “business” model. People are allowed to and in fact do make money, while still providing the source code under the license chosen, be that GPL3, or GPL2 or whatever. The key here is to obey the license under which the software is released. Some licenses are less restrictive than others. George runs a business...to make money. The fact that this particular package has been provided as open source is WAY more generous that non-open source business models. Do you see Native instruments providing their source code to allow you to compile, develop and use? I don’t see anyone calling them shady. Where’s the source code to Omnisphere? What about Ableton Live? You guys are whining about Open Source, because you don’t understand Open Source in all of its forms and complexities. That’s the bottom line.

George may not be the best communicator, but how many of you could do better using a second language? I’m a native English speaker. I somewhat know Spanish and Korean—at least enough to converse somewhat. I can’t imagine trying to explain legalese in something other than my native tongue. George tried to clarify it again, and has even gone through the process of securing a custom license from the original developer to make sure he’s legally in the right.

If you don’t like it, go back and use the freeware version that 2DAT originally developed, but don’t expect to have the rights to all of the developer improvements that George has made since those early days, unless you are willing to compile it yourself. George’s business model is to make money by providing the binaries and support. You get the benefit of all of those improvements through the source.

I truly hope that someday more people will come to understand Open Source better.

[audiojunkie]

Also obxd was originally programmed by 2dat, under GPL, afaik. Most parts still are 2dat. So changing the license to commerical imho is illegal.

Nothing has changed with the source code licensing. You can fork it, develop it, compile it any way you want, as long as it complies with the GPL. Your accusations are false, because you misunderstand the license.

[rasmusklump]

Wow wow, calm down a little bit

[audiojunkie]

I feel that there will be an exodus away from OB-Xd now that lines are more clearly defined and the true colours are shining through

That's OK because there are plenty of other great options out there without the BS

It’s unfortunate that this may be the case, but their fault for not understanding how open source works—and it’s their loss too. As a decades-long linux user, none of this is new to me. Open source is a win-win situation.

[audiojunkie]

Also obxd was originally programmed by 2dat, under GPL, afaik. Most parts still are 2dat. So changing the license to commerical imho is illegal.

Then go use the 2DAT original binaries. Just because you don’t understand the monetization side of open source is not George’s fault. Go look into the Ardour business model before saying mire, because you are only going to embarrass yourself further if you don’t.

[OBSOLETE160530]

[DELETED]

[audiojunkie]

I feel that there will be an exodus away from OB-Xd now that lines are more clearly defined and the true colours are shining through

Actually, for me it's because NOTHING is clearly defined that I'm going to stay far away now.
Just yesterday the opposite was written in another post, that's been edited this morning accordingly to the 180° direction change.

Pity.

- Mario

Go look at the Ardour DAW web page to better understand open source. Sometimes seeing exampkes from elsewhere can help with understanding.

[audiojunkie]

Imagine someone uses (the free version of) Obxd in a monetarized Youtube video which is supposed to explain the basics of subtractive synthesis. I guess it's prohibited to do that?

Undoubtedly, there is financial gain. It should be necessary to buy a license, request a NFR, use a fork from the 2Dat or earlier discoDSP sources, or compile it yourself.

Or just walk away

Yes, that is within your rights as well. Go buy a commercial product that you like better—maybe someday in the future you’ll come around to seeing the benefits of open source.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Guys! This is simple! You are making it too complicated! Here are the simple rules:

1. The software is open source, Yay! YOU can do anything you want to with the source code, as long as you obey the GPL. You can compile it yourself and use it in any way the GPL license allows—even commercially. You can even get a developer friend to compile it for you for free if you want. It’s open source, and George has provided years of improvements at his own cost to continue developing it. I’m grateful!

2. Open Source allows a business model. Yes, it is perfectly ok to make money on the product, as long as the source code is provided for everyone—which, as mentioned above, you can legally compile yourself and have a fully functional plugin, and use it commercially. But, you have to do it yourself or get a friend to do it for you.

3. George is charging for the work of compiling the binaries, development, and support. He has always done so.

4. George went to the original developer and worked out a license with that developer that further protects him legally and allows him the right to manage the binaries, that he creates, how he sees fit. In this case, he has added the stipulation that unless you pay, the binaries that he has created cannot be used for commercial purposes. Once you pay, you are legally able to use the binaries in commercial productions. Remember, these are the binaries that George has compiled where these stipulations take effect. There is little difference between this and shareware—except, you have the added benefit of having legal access to the source code, which you can legally compile yourself and use in commercial products with no problem, as long as you obey the GPL.

5. George’s business model has not changed. There’s nothing shady to it. This is the way open source works, and it has always been this way. Look at the Ardour business model. Look at the Zrhythm business model. Look at every open source “business” model. People are allowed to and in fact do make money, while still providing the source code under the license chosen, be that GPL3, or GPL2 or whatever. The key here is to obey the license under which the software is released. Some licenses are less restrictive than others. George runs a business...to make money. The fact that this particular package has been provided as open source is WAY more generous that non-open source business models. Do you see Native instruments providing their source code to allow you to compile, develop and use? I don’t see anyone calling them shady. Where’s the source code to Omnisphere? What about Ableton Live? You guys are whining about Open Source, because you don’t understand Open Source in all of its forms and complexities. That’s the bottom line.

George may not be the best communicator, but how many of you could do better using a second language? I’m a native English speaker. I somewhat know Spanish and Korean—at least enough to converse somewhat. I can’t imagine trying to explain legalese in something other than my native tongue. George tried to clarify it again, and has even gone through the process of securing a custom license from the original developer to make sure he’s legally in the right.

If you don’t like it, go back and use the freeware version that 2DAT originally developed, but don’t expect to have the rights to all of the developer improvements that George has made since those early days, unless you are willing to compile it yourself. George’s business model is to make money by providing the binaries and support. You get the benefit of all of those improvements through the source.

I truly hope that someday more people will come to understand Open Source better.

This +100.

Let me add:

6. O-Xd would be practically dead if not for George/DiscoDSP. I don't see anyone else posting binaries. And if you want to, you can! George continues to make the source code available as per the license.

7. George added resizing as a feature.

8. George added bank management and preset browsing as a feature.

9. George added a proper MIDI Learn system as a feature with the ability to make, save, and recall mappings.

10. George has kept OB-Xd up to date with modern operating systems.

You can still download it for free and use it for free. He just asks that if you're making money off of music that uses his version of OB-Xd, that you spend $50. If you're a professional, making money from music, that's a non-ask IMO and more than reasonable IMO. It does NOT violate any licensing from 2Dat, quite the opposite in fact. And no one's going to know if you're releasing music using this synth unless you say so. It's not like it outputs audio saying "DiscoDSP OB-Xd" every 10 seconds. So if you want to use it commercially without paying and be that person, you can. Lord knows the number of Reaper users and number of Reaper licenses is far from 1:1.

This seems like much ado about nothing. If someone wants to do their own "free" fork of OB-Xd and wants to maintain it with better licensing conditions, you're absolutely free to do so and work for free, including figuring out how to host it. It may be something that's easy to setup, but to maintain it for years to come and future operating systems? Good luck! You have my support and sympathies.

[FrogsInPants]

Nothing has changed with the source code licensing.

Certainly, the current source is and will remain available for others to fork under GPL. The fact that the repo now says it "will remain available for historic purposes" suggests that future discoDSP development on it will no longer be open source. But we shall see.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

There is a problem here with assets not being openly usable with a GPL project.

We expect to be able to use GPL based projects for any purpose, that is part of the (GPL) license.
obxd has already been packaged in archlinux for example https://archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/ob-xd/ which always built from source and there never was a EULA or extra license agreement for the use of the source.

It has now been clarified in https://github.com/reales/OB-Xd/issues/82 that this usage of the project is not allowed because it contains copyrighted artwork that is not suitable for distribution.
There was no mention of this on the source code before.

It's the same deal with VCV Rack and other open source projects. The artwork and the code are different licenses because the copyrights belong to different people. If I create a skin from scratch and share it, I own that copyright, not George. That's why you technically can't share skins without getting permission from the authors. I assume most authors wouldn't mind, but you should ask. Someone reached out to me about an old skin I created, if it's one I made from scratch, feel free to use it as long as you're not selling it. If it's a mod I did of some other skin (I recolored some Ilka Rosma skins), then I don't own that and you'd need the original author's permission.

[audiojunkie]

We just need to fork the code (which was GPL as of last week), have our own assets and presets, and that's it, we have a properly free to use OBXD version.
We can always revert to the old silver-like gui too, and just removing any presets or non-code data from the code then.

Yep! The only problem there is if someone leaves it to die after forking it.

[audiojunkie]

except now there is a new non-commercial clause? most people were not aware of this at all!

I will try to get win/mac builds of my https://github.com/DISTRHO/DISTRHO-Ports thing later on, maybe January.
I already have an older version of OBXD in there, just need to replace the artwork files with the old original ones and that will be good for a release. (I never imported presets and other files, so it is just artwork to replace here)

And this, guys, is the beauty of open source! Let’s see someone do that with Kontakt.