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

[mystran]

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.

GPL does not "assume" that source code is available, but rather requires that if you distribute a modified version or a derived work, then you must also offer the source code under GPL. MIT and Apache do not have such a requirement and do not assume that the source code is available, though they still have requirements that apply to binaries (notably you need to preserve copyright notices).

That said, it's the author (whether a company or individual) of any given piece of software that gets to decide the license. If a given license doesn't work for you, there's three options: you can kindly ask if what you want to do would be acceptable, you can offer to pay money for alternative license terms or you can use something else.

[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.

GPL does not "assume" that source code is available, but rather requires that if you distribute a modified version or a derived work, then you must also offer the source code under GPL. MIT and Apache do not have such a requirement and do not assume that the source code is available, though they still have requirements that apply to binaries (notably you need to preserve copyright notices).

That said, it's the author (whether a company or individual) of any given piece of software that gets to decide the license. If a given license doesn't work for you, there's three options: you can kindly ask if what you want to do would be acceptable, you can offer to pay money for alternative license terms or you can use something else.

No, use of code on terms of MIT, GPL and Apache assumes that code is available. How can I (re)use code if it is not available for me? How can I determine for example that some code written by me is GPL if this code isn't available for somebody else? Why should I do this?

It is absolutely nonsensical to release a program on terms of MIT, GPL or Apache licences if the sources of this program aren't available or weren't available in any sense (this program is closed source). You talk about use of somebody else code. You are right. Or you talk about an open source program or library. And you are right again, the developer may determine the rules. But here we talk about a licence for a closed source program. No sources are publicly available, no somebody else code is involved. MIT? GPL? Apache? Nonsense. Complete nonsense.

[mystran]

No, use of code on terms of MIT, GPL and Apache assumes that code is available. How can I (re)use code if it is not available for me? How can I determine for example that some code written by me is GPL if this code isn't available for somebody else? Why should I do this?

If you receive a binary that contains GPL code, then the whole program must be under GPL and the source must be available. If you download the source (or order it by mail or whatever other means it's "available"), make modifications and compile a new binary, then should you distribute that binary, you would also have to distribute your modifications to the source code.

If you receive a binary that contains code under MIT license, then there should be a copyright notice that indicates such code was used, but the program itself can have any other license restrictions as chosen by the program's author. The source for the full program need not be available. Apache is basically similar with a few additional conditions.

If you choose to declare your own software as MIT licensed (or GPL for that matter if you're the sole author since it's the copyright owner that would normally have to sue for violations), but refuse to distribute the source, then that's kinda silly, I agree... but those licenses do not apply to "source code" but rather they apply to "original works under copyright" so technically you can slap such a license on a closed source program if it really makes you happy.

[lobanov]

No, use of code on terms of MIT, GPL and Apache assumes that code is available. How can I (re)use code if it is not available for me? How can I determine for example that some code written by me is GPL if this code isn't available for somebody else? Why should I do this?

If you receive a binary that contains GPL code, then the whole program must be under GPL and the source must be available. If you download the source (or order it by mail or whatever other means it's "available"), make modifications and compile a new binary, then should you distribute that binary, you would also have to distribute your modifications to the source code.

If you receive a binary that contains code under MIT license, then there should be a copyright notice that indicates such code was used, but the program itself can have any other license restrictions as chosen by the program's author. The source for the full program need not be available. Apache is basically similar with a few additional conditions.

If you choose to declare your own software as MIT licensed (or GPL for that matter since it's the copyright owner that would normally have to sue for violations), but refuse to distribute the source, then that's kinda silly, I agree... but those licenses do not apply to "source code" but rather they apply to "original works under copyright" so technically you can slap such a license on a closed source program if it really makes you happy.

I understand these differences very well. We are talking about a license for the program that 1) isn't open source and 2) doesn't contain code on terms of MIT, GPL, Apache, BSD or any other license. This program is just free for use (without payments). GPL, MIT or Apache licenses for such a closed source but free for use program are applicable? Or they aren't?

[soundmodel]

Maybe the reason for taking those licenses was that plenty of competitors have such licensing variants.

For example, JUCE has a GPL option.

What I am saying is that being fully proprietary might be a business risk in itself. Especially when the competitors (for example, JUCE, WDL-OL, and APE) have more open options as well as being more technically advanced (possibly).

What could work is releasing it initially under, for example, the MIT license and then forking a proprietary fork of it for your private use. This works for many projects that are really about proprietary code, but that want to attract open source developers too.

I think a dual model of an open sourced "core" and "on-demand proprietary" modules might be more potential.

[BertKoor]

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

With your online presence being limited to a single thread in the 'for DSP coders' section of KvrAudio, that's not going to happen.

I've looked at your manual buried in the .zip: a PDF of 200 pages, the 'introduction' ends on page 85. You've created a swiss army knife plugin and hardly anybody knows about it. This is really impressive. But there's no talk about what it can do and what people find about using it.

Have you ever thought about getting your own subforum here, or making your own website?

[soundmodel]

You've created a swiss army knife plugin and hardly anybody knows about it. This is really impressive. But there's no talk about what it can do and what people find about using it.

Why do you think this project is competitive though?

There are honestly quite many "plug-in builders", such as: https://hise.dev/

There also some really big ones that still failed: http://www.expdigital.co.uk/legacy2/developers.htm

[bjt2]

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

With your online presence being limited to a single thread in the 'for DSP coders' section of KvrAudio, that's not going to happen.

I've looked at your manual buried in the .zip: a PDF of 200 pages, the 'introduction' ends on page 85. You've created a swiss army knife plugin and hardly anybody knows about it. This is really impressive. But there's no talk about what it can do and what people find about using it.

Have you ever thought about getting your own subforum here, or making your own website?

I didn't know that i could ask for a subforum here. Could be interesting. Should I ask to a moderator?
A web site is too much work...
(I am already the web master and developer of the web site where i work... Also there i made the CMS by hand...)
I am spreading the words on reddit, on the VSTi section, whenever someone asks for something that can be solved by my plugin, but someone on SOS found it with google (presumably with the query "free programmable VST") and was impressed ( here: https://www.soundonsound.com/forum/view ... 20#p947020 ).
I registered also there and was considering to open a thread also there.

The phrase "my dream" was an hyperbole. This VST was more a way to pass time in the COVID pandemic. If it can be useful, then ok.

EDIT: for the PDF, i am slowly working on it: trimming the introduction, adding tutorials etc...

[BertKoor]

https://www.kvraudio.com/developer_application.php

> A web site is too much work...
You have the .pdf, I presume it comes out of something else. If that is in markdown format, then it's easy-peasy to turn that into a set of pages at yourSubDomain.github.io
https://docs.github.com/en/pages/quickstart

[lobanov]

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

Yes, as a developer you may create your own subforum here.

Also I think DSP section here on KVR is completely wrong for Crescendo. DSP section is for programmers, Crescendo is for musicians, sound designers etc. That's why this meaningless discussion about GPL and MIT... People who create libraries and presets (Kontakt, SFZ, synths) aren't present here. This section is for people who write plugins and DAWs. May be, you need a thread in section "Instruments"?

[bjt2]

https://www.kvraudio.com/developer_application.php

> A web site is too much work...
You have the .pdf, I presume it comes out of something else. If that is in markdown format, then it's easy-peasy to turn that into a set of pages at yourSubDomain.github.io
https://docs.github.com/en/pages/quickstart

I already have the developer account... The product record is here: https://www.kvraudio.com/product/crescendo-by-bjt2

I don't know those fancy new instruments...
It's a plain word file, written by me that i convert to PDF...
I have created some pieces with the help of NotebookLM, on an old version of the PDF with only the detailed descriptions.

[bjt2]

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

Yes, as a developer you may create your own subforum here.

Also I think DSP section here on KVR is completely wrong for Crescendo. DSP section is for programmers, Crescendo is for musicians, sound designers etc. That's why this meaningless discussion about GPL and MIT... People who create libraries and presets (Kontakt, SFZ, synths) aren't present here. This section is for people who write plugins and DAWs. May be, you need a thread in section "Instruments"?

Thanks for the suggestion! Now that the plugin is quite mature i can think of that. EDIT: i posted here because i wanted suggestions of features to include.
But isn't it crossposting?

[mystran]

https://www.kvraudio.com/developer_application.php

> A web site is too much work...
You have the .pdf, I presume it comes out of something else. If that is in markdown format, then it's easy-peasy to turn that into a set of pages at yourSubDomain.github.io
https://docs.github.com/en/pages/quickstart

I already have the developer account... The product record is here: https://www.kvraudio.com/product/crescendo-by-bjt2

There's some "apply for forum" button somewhere in the developer control panel.

[whyterabbyt]

What I am saying is that being fully proprietary might be a business risk in itself.

Absolute nonsense. Most software discussed at KVR is fully proprietary, including many applications in the same domain of audio programming languages and tools, ie things like Reaktor and MAX / Max4Live.

[soundmodel]

What I am saying is that being fully proprietary might be a business risk in itself.

Absolute nonsense. Most software discussed at KVR is fully proprietary, including many applications in the same domain of audio programming languages and tools, ie things like Reaktor and MAX / Max4Live.

https://faust.grame.fr/ ?
https://supercollider.github.io/ ?