Obxd synthesizer

[george]

I’m curious about who is infringing the copyright here when it links to binary distribution (not a mirror) that you yourself uploaded. Github still stores binaries when you upload releases regardless if whether you deleted the release or not. So the person who distributed those binaries is you and no one else.

Just to clarify, there are no binaries being distributed at GitHub (https://github.com/reales/ob-xd). Also, we want to make it clear that any unauthorized distribution of our OB-Xd software is a violation of our copyright, and we take such violations seriously. We appreciate your cooperation in ensuring that our software is used in accordance with our license terms. Let us know if you have any further questions or concerns.

[audiojunkie]

I’ve never been able to get a clear answer about the copy protection used. I’m not a fan of challenge/response, and the installers appear to call home. I know instructions were given to back up the installs manually in the past, but it has been a while since this has been discussed. I’d rather hear from George than a bot.

[Paree]

Unfortunate, and here i thought i could have an interesting discussion about the legal stuff since its very rare to see an open source project with usage restrictions applied retroactively. Ive have had my fair share of research wrt open source licenses since i’m really passionate about it so this and hence was curious.

[Paree]

I’m curious about who is infringing the copyright here when it links to binary distribution (not a mirror) that you yourself uploaded. Github still stores binaries when you upload releases regardless if whether you deleted the release or not. So the person who distributed those binaries is you and no one else.

Just to clarify, there are no binaries being distributed at GitHub (https://github.com/reales/ob-xd). Also, we want to make it clear that any unauthorized distribution of our OB-Xd software is a violation of our copyright, and we take such violations seriously. We appreciate your cooperation in ensuring that our software is used in accordance with our license terms. Let us know if you have any further questions or concerns.

There are no binaries being distributed NOW. While you did distribute them previously before you deleted them. If someone stumbles across a direct link to binaries that you previously distributed yourself and you had NOT specified copyright protection details back then, and if the only details you specified back then were the GPL, then people can do whatever they wanted as long as they abided with GPL restrictions. This is why there are many distributions of your releases under various linux repositories. You can obviously change your license and all but you cannot take back permissions you had given for your previous releases. Unless you had previously stated that the assets were copyrighted, if the assets are part of your github repository and if the repository is under GPL then everything in the repo is under GPL. You can obviously add the copyright restrictions like you have now, but if it was not mentioned previously, you cannot claim it in retrospect.

(This is from my understanding, if there is anything that says you can add copyright restrictions in retrospect and apply it to previous releases, send me a link so i can better educate myself).


Edit: Most of these linux repositories are very careful when it comes to copyright stuff and they review each and every part of it and they would certainly not distribute binaries with your assets if you had mentioned it previously.

I’m talking about this.

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.

[george]

Thanks for your message. I want to clarify that while the OB-Xd project was under the GPL license, images or artwork do not fall under the GPL. Therefore, if an image or artwork is not specified to be under the GPL license, it cannot be distributed without the permission of the copyright holder.

While it's true that there were previous releases of OB-Xd that were under the GPL license, we have since updated our license terms to reflect our current stance on copyright. The current version of OB-Xd is no longer under the GPL and has additional copyright protections in place. As for the previous releases, we cannot speak for the actions of others who may have distributed binaries without proper authorization or violated our copyright terms. However, we are taking steps to enforce our current copyright protections and ensure that all distribution of OB-Xd is done in compliance with our license terms.

[Paree]

we cannot speak for the actions of others who may have distributed binaries without proper authorization or violated our copyright terms.

There were NO COPYRIGHT TERMS specified when they were released and you only added them retroactively. If there were copyright rules back when it was released. As far as i know, the only thing that was specifically in the license when you released previous version was GPL license, (Your previous releases are archived and the licenses mentioned are clearly visible in those archives). Nowhere was it mentioned that you cannot distribute the binaries or you cannot compile with the assets, those restrictions were only added after you obtained permission from the original creator. Hence, these restrictions only apply to the newer releases and not the older ones.


This should also be a lesson to everyone who wants to donate to an open source project. Please donate it to people who actually care about open source (like the surge synth team) rather than companies who try to make profit off of open source projects. While there is nothing wrong with making money off of open source projects, i would be livid if i was contributing donations to a obxd thinking that im supporting an open source project only for it to turn back on the people who donated and make it yet another commercial offering.

[george]

It's important to note that images and artwork do not fall under the GPL license. Regarding the installers, they are copyright protected as well. We appreciate your feedback and understanding on this matter.

[BBFG#]

Maybe tell us all again what improvements (other than artwork) DiscoDSP has made to the original GPL?

[Paree]

It's important to note that images and artwork do not fall under the GPL license. Regarding the installers, they are copyright protected as well. We appreciate your feedback and understanding on this matter.

You must have specified it back then is what i’m saying.

[george]

If we didn't specify any copyright terms for the installers and assets back then, it doesn't mean they weren't protected by copyright law. Copyright protection is automatic as soon as something is created. And as we've clarified now, our installers and assets are copyright protected and cannot be distributed without our authorization.

[Paree]

Maybe tell us all again what improvements (other than artwork) DiscoDSP has made to the original GPL?

Nothing much from the sound engine perspective from what i know. A lot of stuff wrt UI, preset manager and stuff but maintaining it to support latest operating systems (and M1) is probably the most significant contribution.

I also realised that they forked JuceOPLVsti which is another open source project and turned it into a commercial one. They are within their rights to do that.

If i ever figure out how to compile JUCE stuff (i am not a c++ programmer) I will probably make binaries with the version without any of discodsp’s assets, someone has forked the project and kindly replaced all the resources with their own and provided it under a CC-by-SA license.
https://github.com/gitterdude/OB-Xx

[Paree]

If we didn't specify any copyright terms for the installers and assets back then, it doesn't mean they weren't protected by copyright law. Copyright protection is automatic as soon as something is created. And as we've clarified now, our installers and assets are copyright protected and cannot be distributed without our authorization.

The problem is that this was released as an open source project. While you may be technically right, it is still a scummy move.

It is like that tourist guide dude who pretends like he is helping you by informing and later demands a huge sum. (I am from India so i have had my fair share of such experience )

[george]

We appreciate your interest in our software and your support for open-source projects. We are constantly working on improving our products, and we do our best to keep up with the latest technologies and operating systems.

Regarding the forking of JuceOPLVsti, we understand that there may be some concerns, but we assure you that we have followed all the necessary legal and ethical guidelines. We believe that our product has added value to the original project, and we continue to work hard to make it better.

As for the link you shared, we appreciate the effort put into the forked version, but we would like to remind everyone that it is important to respect intellectual property rights and licenses. We encourage everyone to use our software and other open-source projects responsibly and ethically.

We would also like to add that it is disappointing to see that the fork you shared only replaces the images without adding any new features or significant changes. While we appreciate the effort to create an alternative version, we believe that a more contributive attitude towards open-source projects would involve adding new features or improving existing ones, rather than simply replacing images.

Open-source projects thrive on collaboration and contributions from the community, and we encourage everyone to participate in a way that adds value and benefits to the project as a whole. Once again, we appreciate your interest in our software and your support for open-source projects, and we look forward to hearing more from you in the future.

[george]

If we didn't specify any copyright terms for the installers and assets back then, it doesn't mean they weren't protected by copyright law. Copyright protection is automatic as soon as something is created. And as we've clarified now, our installers and assets are copyright protected and cannot be distributed without our authorization.

The problem is that this was released as an open source project. While you may be technically right, it is still a scummy move.

It is like that tourist guide dude who pretends like he is helping you by informing and later demands a huge sum. (I am from India so i have had my fair share of such experience )

I understand your concern and frustration regarding the copyright issue with the installers and assets. However, as a company, we have a responsibility to protect our intellectual property and ensure that it is not being used without our authorization.

Regarding the open-source project, we understand that the situation may seem confusing or misleading, and we apologize for any misunderstandings that may have arisen. However, we have clarified our copyright position now and hope that everyone can respect our rights as creators and owners of the software.

We value transparency and honesty in all our dealings with customers and the community, and we strive to provide the best possible user experience while protecting our intellectual property rights. Once again, we appreciate your feedback and hope that we can continue to work together towards a better future for all.

[vurt]

is a charity song a commercial product?