Vibe Coding Log - Sharing Journey - Git - Glitch/Time Warping FX - More MIT delays, A dozen types of Lush Supersaws

[Touch The Universe]

You better listen to Claude. Licensing is a special mine field, and GPL is a toxic and very strong copyleft license. If you incorporate GPL-licensed code into your project in a way that triggers its terms, your derived work must also be released under the GPL. Attempting to find loopholes or ‘workarounds’ is often a sign that the integration likely already falls under GPL obligations. Don't.

Two options. Avoid GPL licensed code under all circumstances. Don't even try to "borrow" parts of it with the goal to escape the licensing afterwards. And the other option is, simply put the whole project under GPL.

Both ways can bite you. There are licensing terms that contradicts the GPL. We have this for example with open source graphics software. Autodesks FBX SDK has a license that is incompatible to the GPL, which Blender uses. And this leads to the absurd situation that the Blender developers needs to reverse engineer the FBX SDK with every new version.

That's the vibe I got, better safe than sorry, especially since the facsimile is so close. But's it's legitimately a fundamentally different things I am implementing from what I read. The Original is like a tapestop, this is a contineous generator signal. They share the same name, scrape, though.

Yet I'm still not convinced. Hopefully someone with confidence is kind enough to chime in on the difference wise. Even if they say it's unique code, I'd still run it by the orginal author. In fact, it's his code, so I'm sure he'd know best. Best to ask him.

I might one of these days just release an GPL3 synth because there is so much awesome stuff out there. Just combine the cream of the crop into one GPL since, think surge xt, vital, dexed, etc and add a little bit more, just for fun. It's simple enough, and fun enough to sustain the effort in my opinion. Consolidate the best of the best GPL verbs, delays, any other fx. That would be awesome. Right now, I'm combining the best MIT stuff I can find to give me a wide enough range of sounds to sound design so I don't feel a bit limited. I'm a bit crazy on that regard so only 10 delays, 10 verbs, lots of types of synthesis, (all, haha) sample import, multi samples at that ,and at some point i want to add scripting support so nothing is lacking for indepth sample stuff like kontakt or what not.

[Touch The Universe]

Once I'm done with the delays, I might implement a few more small fx like detune, ring mod etc, then I'll focus on removing bloat and stuff I don't need. I can probably remove 10 pages of testing stuff. I'm hoping to have a master osc of 3 layers with as many different types of synthesis I thing useful. Some of these pages will have an advanced button that opens up an entire page of more knobs. I still need to fill in this section, about 5-7 new types of synthesis yet to be added and i want to implement a unique type of INSANE wavetable synthesis if possible. It's laughably insane if it's possible, will depend on interpolation logics to see if it's pheasable. Also have a really unique idea for importing wavetables as well.

Then, I will create a master interface that simplifies that monstrosity into a digestable interface, or a couple versions. Think of how nexus was before it opened. Nice, clean. I can maybe have a closed off version just for myself or other sound designs if interested. Still deciding, though generally, I don't want to hide the synthesis options if I can help it. The main point is to have sound design in and sell banks to be honest. It might be such a cpu hog, it's be the nicer thing to close it off so people don't get angry cause they can't add more layers or stuff with it breaking. Will see.

[Touch The Universe]

Reached out to the guy on linked in. https://www.linkedin.com/in/joaquim-bro ... ivity/all/

and opened up and issue here.. https://github.com/qbroquetas/IV-XDelay/issues/2


First day using git desktop has been quite beneficial, my mind feels more ordered and a little bit more safer. This is not a bad workflow, thanks to whoever recommended that

It is psychological, more than anything, lol

Screenshot 2026-06-05 at 1.09.00 PM.png

[TechHaus]

Too late now but these vibe coding videos really should not have been on your professional sound packs channel.

[Tiles]

But's it's legitimately a fundamentally different things I am implementing from what I read.

Doesn't matter. One line of GPL code in a project means the entire project must be distributed under the GPL. It's really that simple.

There is a third option: write the code yourself. But AI does that for you. And from what I've read, you've already fed it GPL code. At that point, that's pretty much the end of the discussion.

GPL is a toxic copyleft license. It effectively "infects" the code it touches with its licensing requirements.

EDIT, after reading your issue at the effect manufacturer page, that's indeed option number four. A dual licensing, a private agreement with the original author. Fingers crossed that you can find such an agreement with him. Question is if he can. The reason why his effect is GPL might be that he uses a GPL part from somebody else already.

[Tiles]

Too late now but these vibe coding videos really should not have been on your professional sound packs channel.

Agreed. He could always put it into its own playlist if he want.

[whyterabbyt]

That's the vibe I got, better safe than sorry, especially since the facsimile is so close. But's it's legitimately a fundamentally different things I am implementing from what I read.

That's completely irrelevant. If you're directly using or deriving from GPL'd code in your project then it doesnt matter at all what you're using it for, whether that's the original purpose or not; all the code in the project has to be GPL'd.

And yes, that also means if you're directly using or deriving from code with some other license in your project, then you have almost certainly created a significant problem for yourself because you cant just relicense other people's non-GPL code under the GPL.

[Tiles]

Yeah, good point. As told, licensing is a special minefield

[Touch The Universe]

Going at it. New Concept, perhaps for a solo release that I'll eventually add to the sampler section of the monster synth.

[Touch The Universe]

Too late now but these vibe coding videos really should not have been on your professional sound packs channel.

Thanks for your concern, but why not, might I ask Do you think it might hurt sales

[Touch The Universe]

I feel the same way about not using GPL code. For the most part, it seems unnecessary I'm finding in MOST cases.

The HTML in question might have ZERO of the lines of code, as it might itself be a facsimile.

E=mc2 is a math. If GPL contains E-mc2 surely that part is not applicable, no? I was under the impression it's the implementation of universal math that is copyrighted, not so much the direct math.

I'll ask a more specific question, if a single line was implemented in the HTML from the original. I believe I recall them saying even every line can be different, going from c++ to html is entirely different coding, so even if its derivative. At this point, I have no idea, so I need to rely on other agents or you guys for second opinions, though preferably the author of the code.

Good point as well, maybe the author is using GPL for another source.

Anywho, I'm sticking with the unique code I have for now and will wait to implement the better sounding HTML one, until i get a confirmation I can use it.

[Tiles]

I feel the same way about not using GPL code. For the most part, it seems unnecessary I'm finding in MOST cases.

The HTML in question might have ZERO of the lines of code, as it might itself be a facsimile.

E=mc2 is a math. If GPL contains E-mc2 surely that part is not applicable, no? I was under the impression it's the implementation of universal math that is copyrighted, not so much the direct math.

I'll ask a more specific question, if a single line was implemented in the HTML from the original. I believe I recall them saying even every line can be different, going from c++ to html is entirely different coding, so even if its derivative. At this point, I have no idea, so I need to rely on other agents or you guys for second opinions, though preferably the author of the code.

Good point as well, maybe the author is using GPL for another source.

Anywho, I'm sticking with the unique code I have for now and will wait to implement the better sounding HTML one, until i get a confirmation I can use it.

YIKES!

Note that i am no lawyer, but there are a few fundamental misunderstandings here regarding copyright law and the GPL that you should be aware of, not to be difficult, but because you are heading toward a significant legal headache. And you have already invested so much time into this project.

1. Porting is not 'Creating'
Porting code from one language to another (e.g., C++ to HTML/JavaScript) is legally considered a translation. In copyright law, a translation is a derivative work. Changing the syntax while keeping the logic and structure does not bypass the license. The GPL follows the logic, not just the specific characters used to write it.

2. The 'Math' Fallacy
You are correct that a raw mathematical formula like E=mc2 cannot be copyrighted. However, the specific implementation of that math, the sequence of operations, the architecture, and the way the problem is solved in the code, is an expression of the author's creative work. If you follow the original's logic and structure, you are not using 'math'. You are using the author's protected implementation.

3. The 'Zero Lines' Argument & AI
The GPL doesn't just cover 'copy-pasting' lines. It covers the intellectual structure of the work. Even if you use AI to rewrite the code, the AI is simply acting as a translation tool. It isn't creating an original work from scratch. It is generating a derivative work based on the GPL input.

To legally claim that you've created an independent implementation, you would need to prove a 'Clean Room Design'. This means the person writing the code must have had zero exposure to the original source code and worked only from a functional specification. Since you have studied the GPL code and used AI to mimic its logic, you have essentially documented that the work is derivative.

Blender does exactly this with the FBX SDK: they avoid even looking at it. They provide the proof for the 'Clean Room Design'.

4. The Danger of License Collisions
To make matters worse (and as @whyterabbyt pointed out), mixing code from various open-source projects with conflicting licenses, as you have done, is a recipe for disaster.

The GPL is a 'copyleft' license: if you incorporate GPL code, the entire project must be licensed under the GPL. If you simultaneously use code from other licenses that are incompatible with the GPL, you create a license collision. You cannot satisfy two contradictory licenses at the same time.

The result: You reach a legal deadlock where you cannot legally distribute your software at all. Any company or serious developer will avoid code like this because the distribution rights are corrupted.

Bottom line:
If you're serious about this project and don't want to see it crash later due to copyright violations, you need to make a decision now:

Option 1: Go 100% Open Source.
Make the entire project open source under the GPL. If you do this, please make sure that all other parts you have borrowed have licenses that are compatible with the GPL (e.g., MIT or Apache).

Option 2: Start from scratch. And i mean from scratch.
Start over without ever looking at the original code again. However, be very careful with the AI here: AI has a memory. If you continue in the same chat thread, the AI still 'knows' the GPL code you fed it and will likely just give you a slightly modified version of the same protected logic. ChatGPT is even worse here, it remembers parts from other discussions. So for your needs it is now burned.

Why start completely from scratch? Because of the 'tainted mind' problem. While you can technically revert to a version before the GPL code was added, the legal issue remains: you now possess the knowledge of how the GPL code solved the problem. You can no longer prove that your 'new' implementation is an independent work and not simply a derivative based on the logic you've already seen.

The only way this works is if you revert and implement the effect using a completely different approach/algorithm. But then you really need to ensure the method is fundamentally different, and you should be able to prove it (e.g., by citing a different source or a textbook method).

To truly start from scratch:

Start a completely new chat session to clear the context.
Do not feed any existing GPL code into the prompt.
Instead of asking the AI to 'rewrite' or 'port' something, describe the functional requirement from scratch (e.g., 'I need a function that does X and Y').
Even then, be aware that AI is trained on open-source code and might accidentally suggest structures that are too similar to existing GPL works. If you don't understand the code yourself, you cannot verify if it's truly original.

Anything in between these two options is a legal risk that you alone will bear in the end.

Remains option 3

Reach out to the original author for a separate agreement..
The author holds the copyright and has the power to grant you a private license or a separate agreement that allows you to use the code without the GPL restrictions. This is a common professional practice called 'dual-licensing'. If you can get the author to agree to this (either for free or for a fee), all the legal concerns about derivative works, the 'tainted mind', and license collisions disappear instantly.

Fingers crossed !