discoDSP Retromulator: the Usual Suspects code repackaged

[Teksonik]

Anyway the whole thing even going back to TUS just feels wrong. I took advantage of the Virtual JV because I own a hardware JV880 but even then it just feels "dirty" no matter how legal or moral it may be.

I wonder how many people here, even in this thread, are using a ROM for which they don't own the hardware?

It just seems like the whole project makes it too easy and tempting to take a walk on the "dark side".

[Arksun]

Legally this is perfectly allowed under many open-source licenses, but it raises interesting questions about the spirit of open-source collaboration versus commercial redistribution.

For example:
• Does the new project add meaningful features or value compared to the original one?
• Does it contribute back to the original project in some way?
• Does it improve the software — fixing bugs, improving performance, or expanding functionality?

There was no 'collaboaration', discoDSP simply took the years of dedicated work (some utterly insane deep level stuff with the JP one in particular) that The Usual suspects did, repackaged it, then misleadingly sold it as 'support' on their shop page, without any conversation even occuring between them.

Then when many of my fellow producers expressed their negative feelings about this on social media, they got their comments deleted and were then blocked by discoDSP.

Whole thing just leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. Legal or not, its a very bad look....

[george]

A clarification:

Retromulator is built on Gearmulator, an open source project by the dsp56300 team, released under GPL v3. This license explicitly permits commercial use, modification, and distribution — it is the foundation of many successful companies including Red Hat, Canonical and WordPress.

Our contributions include JUCE integration, unified rack UI, DAW state persistence, preset browser, signed and notarized installers for Windows/macOS/Linux/ARM64 , and porting the VDX7 DX7 core to the Gearmulator framework.

The product is free with no feature restrictions. Purchasing supports ongoing development of our wrapper and entitles users to priority technical support.

Full source code has been available at https://github.com/reales/retromulator since day one, with complete attribution to the Gearmulator/TUS and VDX7 teams on both our website and repository.

We have great respect for The Usual Suspects team and their extraordinary work. A product like Retromulator can only increase visibility for their project and we will not tolerate public defamation, false accusations of theft, or bad faith narratives about our work.

[cthonophonic]

If George's past behavior is any indication, then "support" means releasing a new version in a few years with only compatibility and minor QOL enhancements. At that point, he'll delete the old installers from user accounts and ask them for a $99 upgrade fee just to use the software they already bought. If he's feeling particularly spicy, he'll threaten retaliation against anyone who complains about the price publicly, because that is confidential information for some reason.

I can't think of anyone I'd trust less with support for this product, unless maybe Netochka Nezvanova were to make a glorious 25-year return.

[discogsaddict]

I cant help but get the feeling this is something really childish.

Hes bitter because the usual suspects have killed interest in his Nord vst by releasing the emulation. And this is his attempt to get back at them

[EvilDragon]

unified rack UI

Which is worse overall user experience than any of the dedicated UIs.

DAW state persistence

Also exists in TUS plugins and works just fine.

preset browser

Also (way) worse than the TUS browser.


These are easily observable facts and not defamation, by the way.

[Puduku]

OK, now everything makes sense.

Just the idea of "hey, this plugin is completely free to use for all, but after all I'm allowed to rewrite it and sell it for money, so let's do it!"...

Now I understand this was not all a mistake or any kind of misunderstanding between DiscoDSP and its customers...

[digitalboytn]

A clarification:

We will not tolerate public defamation, false accusations of theft, or bad faith narratives about our work.

Georgie....

A little clarification....

You can see that there is a lot of love and support for you and Dis Goes Wif Dat around here, so we are merely broadcasting the facts so that peeps can make informed decisions on the software that they use...

That is what these forums exist for...

So chill out a little and soak up the adulation .....

You deserve it

[IvyBirds]

Legally this is perfectly allowed under many open-source licenses, but it raises interesting questions about the spirit of open-source collaboration versus commercial redistribution.

For example:
• Does the new project add meaningful features or value compared to the original one?
• Does it contribute back to the original project in some way?
• Does it improve the software — fixing bugs, improving performance, or expanding functionality?

There was no 'collaboaration', discoDSP simply took the years of dedicated work (some utterly insane deep level stuff with the JP one in particular) that The Usual suspects did, repackaged it, then misleadingly sold it as 'support' on their shop page, without any conversation even occuring between them.

Then when many of my fellow producers expressed their negative feelings about this on social media, they got their comments deleted and were then blocked by discoDSP.

Whole thing just leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. Legal or not, its a very bad look....

You do realize that is exactly what The Usual Suspects want right? That is why they distributed it to the way they did so people could do exactly this right? You do realize that everyone who worked on this knew exactly what Open Sourced Software was and what it was going to be licensed to allow

You seem quite upset that someone used code that was freely distributed and licensed to do the exact thing they did

But please show me where in the licensing agreement from the Usual Suspects where they are asking anyone to do the things you seem to require such as a collaboration?

Because the Usual Suspects puts this license in everything they distribute

"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish)"

If you think that is wrong perhaps your rage is being directed at the wrong entity. Your issue seems to be with The Usual Suspects because they are choosing to do things with their IP that you find triggering

[TreyM]

You do realize that is exactly what The Usual Suspects want right? That is why they listened it to the way they did so people could do exactly this right? You do realize that everyone who worked on this knew exactly what Open Sourced Software was and what it was going to be licensed to allow

Really? Allow me to directly quote one of the TUS team members:

He basically took our source, put his own wrapper on it and is trying to sell it and use it to promote his own business. Can't prevent it, but frankly this is reprehensible IMHO.

Yes. He knows he cannot legally "sell" it due to the licensing model our code is published under. Therefore he sells "support" of "his development efforts" to include difficult things like "git clone" and other arcane and extremely difficult stuff. sigh... I'd strongly advise anyone using it not to actually pay him for it, but that is just my opinion.

It's not illegal what he has done, but it is scummy. He "sells support" as a way to make money on a product he can't legally sell outright. And he didn't bother reaching out to TUS before slapping his wrapper on it and started "selling support" on a product he largely had no hand in.

[Arksun]

You do realize that is exactly what The Usual Suspects want right? That is why they distributed it to the way they did so people could do exactly this right? You do realize that everyone who worked on this knew exactly what Open Sourced Software was and what it was going to be licensed to allow

If you think that is wrong perhaps your rage is being directed at the wrong entity. Your issue seems to be with The Usual Suspects because they are choosing to do things with their IP that you find triggering

Aside from Treys post above quoting The Usual Suspects from their own discord, I happen to be in a private whatsapp group with a couple of The Usual Suspect guys and they are absolutely NOT happy about this.

Sorry to say you've totally misread the situation, and this defence of discoDSP is wild.

[IvyBirds]

You do realize that is exactly what The Usual Suspects want right? That is why they listened it to the way they did so people could do exactly this right? You do realize that everyone who worked on this knew exactly what Open Sourced Software was and what it was going to be licensed to allow

Really? Allow me to directly quote one of the TUS team members:

He basically took our source, put his own wrapper on it and is trying to sell it and use it to promote his own business. Can't prevent it, but frankly this is reprehensible IMHO.

Yes. He knows he cannot legally "sell" it due to the licensing model our code is published under. Therefore he sells "support" of "his development efforts" to include difficult things like "git clone" and other arcane and extremely difficult stuff. sigh... I'd strongly advise anyone using it not to actually pay him for it, but that is just my opinion.

It's not illegal what he has done, but it is scummy. He "sells support" as a way to make money on a product he can't legally sell outright. And he didn't bother reaching out to TUS before slapping his wrapper on it and started "selling support" on a product he largely had no hand in.

Wow you are quoting one guy who ignorantly doesn't even know the licensing model they are distributed under .

Quite honestly that is embarrassing for him and anyone who quoted him

Because the license says they ABSOLUTELY CAN CHARGE, but I guess in your rage you failed to understand basic facts

This is the link for the software as distributed by the Usual Suspects

https://github.com/dsp56300/gearmulator

You will notice if you go to that page you will find out it's distributed under the GPL 3.0 License which you can read for yourself and they include the entire license

If you actually read it you will find the following statement

Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish),

Sorry you have been triggered by incorrect information shared by someone who should know better.

[IvyBirds]

You do realize that is exactly what The Usual Suspects want right? That is why they distributed it to the way they did so people could do exactly this right? You do realize that everyone who worked on this knew exactly what Open Sourced Software was and what it was going to be licensed to allow

If you think that is wrong perhaps your rage is being directed at the wrong entity. Your issue seems to be with The Usual Suspects because they are choosing to do things with their IP that you find triggering

Aside from Treys post above quoting The Usual Suspects from their own discord, I happen to be in a private whatsapp group with a couple of The Usual Suspect guys and they are absolutely NOT happy about this.

Sorry to say you've totally misread the situation, and this defence of discoDSP is wild.

Why are they unhappy about someone using their software under the license they decided to distribute it by?

If they didn't want someone else to distribute it even if it's for a fee, they shouldn't have distributed it that way and specifically included a license that permits it to be sold by third parties

Again your rage seems misguided, and if these mystery guys are that upset why are they part of the team that distributes code and states to anyone who downloads it has

"the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish)"

[TreyM]

LOL
Here, allow me to quote MYSELF this time:

It's not illegal what he has done,

What part of that phrase do you think was me claiming discoDSP has done something legally wrong? The TUS member certainly didn't say it was illegal either.

CAREFULLY and SLOWLY re-read what I wrote, then tell yourself to relax. Understanding is very helpful.

[IvyBirds]

The legality of the whole operation is not under discussion...
The debate seems to be more about the spirit of open-source collaboration versus commercial re-packaging.

The spirit of the Open-Source community is clearly stated in the type of Open Source License they choose to distribute it under in this case the GPL 3 which clearly states the spirit at which the software is distributed

"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish)"

I am sorry the actual spirit of Open Sourced Software distributed under the GPL 3.0 license is so triggering for you and doesn't fit your preconceived ideology or fit your narrative

Again DiscoDSP can legally do this and under the exact spirit of the Open Sourced licensed granted them absolutely do this