Obxd synthesizer

[Lbdunequest]

Update on compiling release 2.10 of OB-Xd github source code. This has been accomplished. I had to obtain and compile the source code for the latest version of JUCE. But once I had JUCE and Projucer, compiling OB-Xd from source on Linux was pretty straightforward.

I fired up Ardour, found the OB-Xd Plugin that I had just compiled from source. Threw it into a track with some TAL Chorus and Dragonfly Reverb. Needless to say it sounded absolutely amazing. I was able to create and save a preset in a bank that I created.

Only one hiccup that I noticed is that my compiled program of OB-Xd points to the Linux Document folder where the themes/skins are to be located. I found that with my compiled program, I was able to access the "Copywritten Themes" from DiscoDSP's non-free release. However, when I completely removed the folder with the copywritten assets, I got the expected "Assets Not Found Reinstall OB-XD or give access to documents folder".

The lack of skins DID NOT prevent me from being able to play the synth as I could control the synth from the Generic Controls found within Ardour.

So, after all said and done, I now have a version of OB-Xd compiled from Source that was released under GPL-3 which is a Free Software License that doesn't restrict me from using my compiled version to create Music that I can sell for a profit/commercial use (please refer to GPL FAQ on "Commercial Uses" at GNU.org on why I am able to do that with source code released under a GNU Public License).

And I didn't have to pay a single cent!!!! Isn't the GPL absolutely awesome?

Next Step is to see if I can compile a binary on Windows.

whats wrong with using updated version by DiscoDSP? its free...

[Lbdunequest]

I dont use anything by DiscoDSP, but i see recurring people that mostly post here in various kvr threads, you sound like horrible, grumpy unfurfiled with life people, get a grip and let DiscoDSP do its thing.

On the topic, is having overampling a huge improvement over not having?

Overampling is essential

its actually not always, Sylenth1 for example oversampled vs not doesnt sound different. Similar case with Dune 3, tho it benefits when using modulation at high rates. Its hard to grasp for me that on OBXD the difference would be like night and day in quality.

[digitalboytn]

I was only jiving...

I know you meant oversampling,but you wrote overampling

[kylie]

So, after all said and done, I now have a version of OB-Xd compiled from Source that was released under GPL-3 which is a Free Software License that doesn't restrict me from using my compiled version to create Music that I can sell for a profit/commercial use (please refer to GPL FAQ on "Commercial Uses" at GNU.org on why I am able to do that with source code released under a GNU Public License).

And I didn't have to pay a single cent!!!! Isn't the GPL absolutely awesome?

Next Step is to see if I can compile a binary on Windows.

I really appreciate your efforts, and I'm absolutely fine with your way expressing your concerns regarding the DiscoDSP version and its license although I would assume that you kinda accepted the way they do their business, right?

Apart from that... what formats do you plan to release the Windows builds with? I'm not a VST licensing specialist but does the SDK licensing allow keeping your builds open source? Maybe you might look for clap - which would be something even the folks at DiscoDSP do not offer right now. Curious to see how far this will take you.

[kylie]

So, after all said and done, I now have a version of OB-Xd compiled from Source that was released under GPL-3 which is a Free Software License that doesn't restrict me from using my compiled version to create Music that I can sell for a profit/commercial use (please refer to GPL FAQ on "Commercial Uses" at GNU.org on why I am able to do that with source code released under a GNU Public License).

And I didn't have to pay a single cent!!!! Isn't the GPL absolutely awesome?

whats wrong with using updated version by DiscoDSP? its free...

The difference is - if I'm not mistaken - that the free DiscoDSP release is not licensed for commercial use while the paid / sponsored version is, just like his self compiled OB-Xd.

[Lbdunequest]

So, after all said and done, I now have a version of OB-Xd compiled from Source that was released under GPL-3 which is a Free Software License that doesn't restrict me from using my compiled version to create Music that I can sell for a profit/commercial use (please refer to GPL FAQ on "Commercial Uses" at GNU.org on why I am able to do that with source code released under a GNU Public License).

And I didn't have to pay a single cent!!!! Isn't the GPL absolutely awesome?

whats wrong with using updated version by DiscoDSP? its free...

The difference is - if I'm not mistaken - that the free DiscoDSP release is not licensed for commercial use while the paid / sponsored version is, just like his self compiled OB-Xd.

Who will know that someone is using free version? When you release music you are not asked to show which synths you used...

[kylie]

So, after all said and done, I now have a version of OB-Xd compiled from Source that was released under GPL-3 which is a Free Software License that doesn't restrict me from using my compiled version to create Music that I can sell for a profit/commercial use (please refer to GPL FAQ on "Commercial Uses" at GNU.org on why I am able to do that with source code released under a GNU Public License).

And I didn't have to pay a single cent!!!! Isn't the GPL absolutely awesome?

whats wrong with using updated version by DiscoDSP? its free...

The difference is - if I'm not mistaken - that the free DiscoDSP release is not licensed for commercial use while the paid / sponsored version is, just like his self compiled OB-Xd.

Who will know that someone is using free version? When you release music you are not asked to show which synths you used...

You will know. And if you care for what you agreed to in the "Accept and proceed?" dialogue while installing a synth - this synth in particular - it might even matter to you. Yes, this even applies if there is no installer and the license terms are supplied in the archive you download.

It might be illegal to urinate on my frontyard lawn. So you think it is not as long as there's no witness ?

[Lbdunequest]

So, after all said and done, I now have a version of OB-Xd compiled from Source that was released under GPL-3 which is a Free Software License that doesn't restrict me from using my compiled version to create Music that I can sell for a profit/commercial use (please refer to GPL FAQ on "Commercial Uses" at GNU.org on why I am able to do that with source code released under a GNU Public License).

And I didn't have to pay a single cent!!!! Isn't the GPL absolutely awesome?

whats wrong with using updated version by DiscoDSP? its free...

The difference is - if I'm not mistaken - that the free DiscoDSP release is not licensed for commercial use while the paid / sponsored version is, just like his self compiled OB-Xd.

Who will know that someone is using free version? When you release music you are not asked to show which synths you used...

You will know. And if you care for what you agreed to in the "Accept and proceed?" dialogue while installing a synth - this synth in particular - it might even matter to you. Yes, this even applies if there is no installer and the license terms are supplied in the archive you download.

It might be illegal to urinate on my frontyard lawn. So you think it is not as long as there's no witness ?

That is true, its more of a moral obligation. But if you find the synth useful and want to release music, you can always just buy out the "commercial" licence, its not much.

[kylie]

Who will know that someone is using free version? When you release music you are not asked to show which synths you used...

You will know. And if you care for what you agreed to in the "Accept and proceed?" dialogue while installing a synth - this synth in particular - it might even matter to you. Yes, this even applies if there is no installer and the license terms are supplied in the archive you download.

That is true, its more of a moral obligation. But if you find the synth useful and want to release music, you can always just buy out the "commercial" licence, its not much.

That's the very point and I definitely encourage anyone who likes it to do so. The other road to morality is - as pointed out - to take the source, compile it yourself and use it for whatever you like. I would clearly consider it a bonus having a choice.

[jlgrimes11]

So, after all said and done, I now have a version of OB-Xd compiled from Source that was released under GPL-3 which is a Free Software License that doesn't restrict me from using my compiled version to create Music that I can sell for a profit/commercial use (please refer to GPL FAQ on "Commercial Uses" at GNU.org on why I am able to do that with source code released under a GNU Public License).

And I didn't have to pay a single cent!!!! Isn't the GPL absolutely awesome?

whats wrong with using updated version by DiscoDSP? its free...

The difference is - if I'm not mistaken - that the free DiscoDSP release is not licensed for commercial use while the paid / sponsored version is, just like his self compiled OB-Xd.

Who will know that someone is using free version? When you release music you are not asked to show which synths you used...

If a song gets popular though, it will be analyzed to death.

If you are programming your own sounds, it probably would be difficult to tell other than clients disclosing your gear. But if you are using presets, someone probably could figure it out.

[rfawcett]

whats wrong with using updated version by DiscoDSP? its free...

Is it trully "FREE"? And by "FREE", I mean "FREE" as in a Richard Stallman sense of the word "FREE" (Richard Stallman founded the Free Software Foundation)?

According to DiscoDSP's website, "The free trial version of OB-Xd has no functional limitations and does not allow commercial use."

That sounds like software that doesn't respect a user's rights. The trial version is "GRATIS", but it definitely doesn't fall under the definition of "FREE SOFTWARE".

However, DiscoDSP still has the 2.10 Source Code of OB-XD up on github. That source code was released under the GPL-3 license. As a result, I git cloned the software and was able to compile my own Binary of OB-Xd which CAN be used for Commercial Purposes. And I legally did that without paying a single cent to DiscoDSP. And I want to genuinely thank DiscoDSP and 2DAT for releasing the source code under GPL-3. But I will say that it is a crying shame that DiscoDSP decided to close things.

But, alas, the free code lives on!!!

BTW, I forked DiscoDSPs OB-Xd repository on github. Its called OB-Xd-GREC and it is a work in progress.

[rfawcett]

I'll answer each question.

I really appreciate your efforts, and I'm absolutely fine with your way expressing your concerns regarding the DiscoDSP version and its license although I would assume that you kinda accepted the way they do their business, right?

Thank you for your appreciation of my efforts. I have no choice but to accept the way that DiscoDSP does business. I am sure that the way that they conduct themselves is within the confines of the law. I am 100% for DiscoDSP making a profit off of their software (even if they are profiting off of software that was released under a Free Software License like GPL-3).

However, since that code was released under GPL-3, I have already forked it on github. My primary goal is to basically preserve the Source Code and its functionality so that it basically doesn't die. OB-Xd compiled from the source code on github is still OB-Xd. It's absolutely awesome and you can make great music with it.

Apart from that... what formats do you plan to release the Windows builds with? I'm not a VST licensing specialist but does the SDK licensing allow keeping your builds open source? Maybe you might look for clap - which would be something even the folks at DiscoDSP do not offer right now. Curious to see how far this will take you.

At this point, I am looking to preserve the Source Code of 2.10, Make skins/themes that will be under an appropriate license that will respect all users' rights and freedom to use the software. Also, I have become proficient in dialing in sounds, so I would like to provide presets for my forked version (which again will be released under an appropriate license such that the users' software rights and freedoms will be respected).

With regard to VST licensing, I honestly don't know. I am not a Developer. I am a Free and Open Source Software advocate who is a Linux User who scours GitHub for opportunities to freeload off of other people's work for my own Personal Computing needs. But I will say that if the SDK licensing doesn't allow for my builds to be open source, I would have to give that a hard 'NO'. But, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.

[rfawcett]

Who will know that someone is using free version? When you release music you are not asked to show which synths you used...

More than likely, you are correct. No one would probably ask. But say you get rich and famous from a particular track that used the DiscoDSP Gratis version of OB-Xd and you let it slip that you used that version of OB-Xd for a commercial purpose, then I imagine you would be in a world of legal hurt.

My personally compiled version mitigates that possibility as it was compiled from source code that was released under a Free Software License (GPL-3) which explicitly prohibits that use-restriction. In fact, it is covered quite clearly in the FAQ on GNU Licenses at gnu.org.

[rfawcett]

That's the very point and I definitely encourage anyone who likes it to do so. The other road to morality is - as pointed out - to take the source, compile it yourself and use it for whatever you like. I would clearly consider it a bonus having a choice.

And that is the exact road that I want to take. I want my fellow musicians to be able to easily take the code, compile it, and use the resulting program to make music and not have to worry about what they can and can't do with a piece of software.

[kylie]

According to DiscoDSP's website, "The free trial version of OB-Xd has no functional limitations and does not allow commercial use."

That sounds like software that doesn't respect a user's rights. The trial version is "GRATIS", but it definitely doesn't fall under the definition of "FREE SOFTWARE".

It might not fall under your (and of course Richards) definition of "Free Software". Maybe you would feel better if it was declared "free of charge" ? In the end, it's a trial, and most people know what the purpose of trial software is.

However, DiscoDSP still has the 2.10 Source Code of OB-XD up on github. That source code was released under the GPL-3 license. As a result, I git cloned the software and was able to compile my own Binary of OB-Xd which CAN be used for Commercial Purposes. And I legally did that without paying a single cent to DiscoDSP. And I want to genuinely thank DiscoDSP and 2DAT for releasing the source code under GPL-3. But I will say that it is a crying shame that DiscoDSP decided to close things.

They acquired a license from the original developer for exactly that purpose. It was his decision to set the code on github free under GPL-3 and hand over code to DiscoDSP under a different license. They could not have moved on without his agreement. I don't see why whis is the fault of DiscoDSP.