Free programmable VST Instrument,Audio effect,MIDI processor/sequencer,SoundFont import,Temperaments,Multi I/O v1.0.200

[lobanov]

There are different views on licenses, just like there are different licenses.

I would personally suggest Mozilla Public License 2.0 because it's a balance between the interests of commercial users and open source users. The GNU Public License is only about open source users. The MIT/Apache and similar licenses are about open source but also open for being exploited by commercial companies.

https://choosealicense.com/licenses/

The license you can use may be dictated by the licenses of the libraries that you are already using. You cannot close the source, if you use any GPL-licensed libraries, and with LGPL you cannot close the modifications done to those on those libraries. For example, FFMPEG is under either of these.

You may also wish to close the source, but I speculate that not many would be willing to pay for its usage at this stage, because I don't see any particular killer features. Unless the price is very cheap, such as 9.99 per license or something. With a suitable license, it's possible to close derivative works later on.

However, observe that, for example, JUCE Personal Free is free to use up to $50k revenue. https://juce.com/legal/juce-7-license/ It's far larger than an one person project could ever be. You would need some serious killer features to make this product more appealing than that or even the indie license at $40 per product.

The licences you've meant are applicable to source code rather than to compiled programs. Niether LGPL nor MPL are applicaple here as the sources of the program are closed.

[BertKoor]

I never used any versioning software (i hate them)

How can you say you hate it, if you have never used it?

Have you never scratched your head thinking: why the heck did I write this piece of code like this?
Or: I think this piece of code did work last month, but now not any more... what changed?

Version control lets you do software archaeology. I think that's very powerful. And useful.
(I don't dare to ask whether you have automatic tests. You'll say they just slow you down. Well, safety belts don't really slow you down)

[whyterabbyt]

There are different views on licenses, just like there are different licenses.

I would personally suggest Mozilla Public License 2.0 because it's a balance between the interests of commercial users and open source users. The GNU Public License is only about open source users. The MIT/Apache and similar licenses are about open source but also open for being exploited by commercial companies.

https://choosealicense.com/licenses/

The license you can use may be dictated by the licenses of the libraries that you are already using. You cannot close the source, if you use any GPL-licensed libraries, and with LGPL you cannot close the modifications done to those on those libraries. For example, FFMPEG is under either of these.

You may also wish to close the source, but I speculate that not many would be willing to pay for its usage at this stage, because I don't see any particular killer features. Unless the price is very cheap, such as 9.99 per license or something. With a suitable license, it's possible to close derivative works later on.

However, observe that, for example, JUCE Personal Free is free to use up to $50k revenue. https://juce.com/legal/juce-7-license/ It's far larger than an one person project could ever be. You would need some serious killer features to make this product more appealing than that or even the indie license at $40 per product.

The licences you've meant are applicable to source code rather than to compiled programs. Niether LGPL nor MPL are applicaple here as the sources of the program are closed.

As usual, soundmodel will be pushing for this to be open-sourced using some license that gives him stuff for free but doesnt require him to open source anything of his own.

[bjt2]

I never used any versioning software (i hate them)

How can you say you hate it, if you have never used it?

Have you never scratched your head thinking: why the heck did I write this piece of code like this?
Or: I think this piece of code did work last month, but now not any more... what changed?

Version control lets you do software archaeology. I think that's very powerful. And useful.
(I don't dare to ask whether you have automatic tests. You'll say they just slow you down. Well, safety belts don't really slow you down)

You are right, they can be very useful. Especially if you work in group. I work alone and remember anything of my code, that is also heavily commented. I started programming when those things did not exist. I attended university when these things did not exist. I am accustomed to the old way. But maybe i will learn how to use them. Now i don't feel the nencessity.
Anyway I save scratch files with old snippets of code and full project folder snapshots. But i never had go to dig into them.

[bjt2]

There are different views on licenses, just like there are different licenses.

I would personally suggest Mozilla Public License 2.0 because it's a balance between the interests of commercial users and open source users. The GNU Public License is only about open source users. The MIT/Apache and similar licenses are about open source but also open for being exploited by commercial companies.

https://choosealicense.com/licenses/

The license you can use may be dictated by the licenses of the libraries that you are already using. You cannot close the source, if you use any GPL-licensed libraries, and with LGPL you cannot close the modifications done to those on those libraries. For example, FFMPEG is under either of these.

You may also wish to close the source, but I speculate that not many would be willing to pay for its usage at this stage, because I don't see any particular killer features. Unless the price is very cheap, such as 9.99 per license or something. With a suitable license, it's possible to close derivative works later on.

However, observe that, for example, JUCE Personal Free is free to use up to $50k revenue. https://juce.com/legal/juce-7-license/ It's far larger than an one person project could ever be. You would need some serious killer features to make this product more appealing than that or even the indie license at $40 per product.

The licences you've meant are applicable to source code rather than to compiled programs. Niether LGPL nor MPL are applicaple here as the sources of the program are closed.

As usual, soundmodel will be pushing for this to be open-sourced using some license that gives him stuff for free but doesnt require him to open source anything of his own.

My dream is to create a community around the plugin where instrument developers create files to eventually share with others, for free of course.
Maybe i will open source the code one day, i don't care. I made this software for fun and for myself, when i had the need of a programmable plugin with temperaments and i found sforzando a bit too limited. I can share with others. Maybe not the source code for now... Especially in these ages of AIs that scanvenge every corner of the web to have examples of everithing to train on...

[whyterabbyt]

My dream is to create a community around the plugin where instrument developers create files to eventually share with others, for free of course.

which, of course, is great. i'd take the license question, as posed, as being an irrelevance to that, to be honest. its a push for you to give more than you already have, IMO.

Maybe i will open source the code one day, i don't care. I made this software for fun and for myself, when i had the need of a programmable plugin with temperaments and i found sforzando a bit too limited. I can share with others. Maybe not the source code for now... Especially in these ages of AIs that scanvenge every corner of the web to have examples of everithing to train on...

i think thats perfectly reasonable. unfortunately some people grow a (quite greedy, sometimes) sense of entitlement to things they are being gifted with, ostensibly demanding 'more' of that gift. i think you'll probably be happiest proceeding as you are, without worrying about catering to someone else's expectations.

[soundmodel]

Could you specify the license in the starting post?

What I meant is that you could've put the license in the first post and not just in the .zip.

I am not going to download some random .zip in order to see the license. I will not even try this program if I need to download something to know its license.

[bjt2]

Could you specify the license in the starting post?

What I meant is that you could've put the license in the first post and not just in the .zip.

I am not going to download some random .zip in order to see the license. I will not even try this program if I need to download something to know its license.

Ok, i will put the license in the first post. I see i can't upload a simple text file.

[soundmodel]

Also, what is this "Freeware License"?

It's not very useful to write your own license unless you have some very special case, which is unlikely here.

The drawback is that people will not bother to try this software because they cannot be bothered to read and understand some license, which is not even one of the standard ones that they already know. So it's much better to pick something that's already known and that suits your needs. It is hard enough to understand the nuances of something like the GPL or MIT vs Apache 2.0.

[BertKoor]

Also, what is this "Freeware License"?

Freeware imho doesn't need a license. People understand what it is, just like "free beer".

Licenses are for people that take lawyers too seriously. No good ever came from that.
(says the guy that attaches the DBAD license to some of his GitHub repo's)

[bjt2]

Also, what is this "Freeware License"?

It's not very useful to write your own license unless you have some very special case, which is unlikely here.

The drawback is that people will not bother to try this software because they cannot be bothered to read and understand some license, which is not even one of the standard ones that they already know. So it's much better to pick something that's already known and that suits your needs. It is hard enough to understand the nuances of something like the GPL or MIT vs Apache 2.0.

I am not an expert and used the free version of ChatGPT. I am not a lawyer, so i couldn't know how to write a license.

I agree that most people just click accept and don't bother to read the licenses, including the GPL ones.

If they don't try the software for the license, pity to them... Most musicians are happy to buy closed source VSTs also for hundreds of $, and i am sure that most of them will be much than happy to get a software for free. I don't think that most of the musicians are so picky on the license...

[bjt2]

Also, what is this "Freeware License"?

Oh, just don't be such a dick. Freeware imho doesn't need a license. People understand what it is, just like "free beer".

Licenses are for people that take lawyers too seriously. No good ever came from that.
(says the guy that attaches the DBAD license to some of his GitHub repo's)

I wanted to include a license to not be sued if my VST causes some "harm" to someone. There are people that sue almost for nothing. Not that this scares me: i don't live in the US...
Another reason is to prohibit reverse enginering: the language is public, the PDF is a sort of specification, but the implementation not. Others are free to produce a new version compatible with this language, extend the language etc...

[whyterabbyt]

It is hard enough to understand the nuances of something like the GPL or MIT vs Apache 2.0.

No, not really. And since they're source code licenses, not application licenses, they're not applicable to this scenario anyway.,

[whyterabbyt]

I wanted to include a license to not be sued if my VST causes some "harm" to someone. There are people that sue almost for nothing. Not that this scares me: i don't live in the US...
Another reason is to prohibit reverse enginering: the language is public, the PDF is a sort of specification, but the implementation not. Others are free to produce a new version compatible with this language, extend the language etc...

I would look for proper advice on this that's aimed at developers...

https://dev.to/jeferson0993/a-handy-gui ... a-pro-10b3

A simple proprietary license would be perfectly resonable IMO. You can google for templates.

[lobanov]

So it's much better to pick something that's already known and that suits your needs. It is hard enough to understand the nuances of something like the GPL or MIT vs Apache 2.0.

All these licences are applicable to SOURCE CODE rather than programs. There is no any need to pick one of them. And people WON'T UNDERSTAND this as such licences assume that source code is OPEN and may be accessed and modified.