Vibe Coding Log - Sharing Journey - Demo of Smaller Spinoff (Unique Time Based Synth - Grossbeat Like)

[TechHaus]

You actually should have listened to me in post #2 and vibe coded your site, so you had some experience with vibe coding and could use that experience to build this synth right.

I was giving you a project with a reasonable scope in a tongue in cheek way.

[Tiles]

Also, the licensing issues, not sure what you mean?

Your project is a ticking licensing time bomb. That's what is meant. The moment you release it publicly is the moment you are likely to find yourself in legal trouble.

Throughout this thread you've described building parts of your synth from existing projects without first verifying whether their licenses are compatible with a commercial closed-source product, or even compatible with each other.

My professional opinion at the matter is that you should delete it and start over from scratch. Not because of the most probably unmaintainable spaghetti code. But because the licensing situation is fundamentally broken.

Or more drastically: Stop this shit, you are shooting yourself into your foot. When you give a f*** about licenses from others, then they will give you the proper legal answer for that.

[Touch The Universe]

You might have misread my words, or I'm misunderstanding you. I've said it many times over, every time it's brought up, no gpl 3 code is permanently in the synth. I had test versions for cpu comparisions for surge in two places. I tried more but gpt wouldn't let me. The code was removed or new branches.

If you mean, I fed GPL3 code to agents for ideas, that is true. But isn't that what open source is for, to look at it and learn to some degree. Is it against GPL3 license to feed it to agents? This only took place in a few places. The VAST VAST VAST Majority of ANYTHING WITH A LICENSE AT ALL is MIT stuff - this is only for the delays and a few verbs. The rest, 95% of the synth is, hey, i want a per unison filter - then it's added. 5% is GPL derived for ideas when i didn't like the results. I feel like this is a broken circle but what more can I do. I'm literally reaching out to the coder on the MERE possibility I might have used the GPL3 to make an html facsimile that isn't even in my synth to see if it's okay TO IMPORT IT INTO my synth. Perhaps you aren't comprehending me.

I am requesting permission to use an HTML facimile of his code into my synth. Currently, I have unique code in my synth. I've sent him the code for him to make the decision.

Don't care? Go and tell another one

[Touch The Universe]

You actually should have listened to me in post #2 and vibe coded your site, so you had some experience with vibe coding and could use that experience to build this synth right.

I was giving you a project with a reasonable scope in a tongue in cheek way.

What

I guess I appreciate your intent but it'd bare more fruit if you chose another path

The site is fine, and a bit too simple to likely entice me for long. I'd have needed to get into the good stuff sooner to keep me interested.

I'm working on a branch side project of that "little" synth I uploaded a demo of, so I agree with that concept for sure, smaller projects builds momentum as well.

[Touch The Universe]

I am rolling my eyes so hard. You keep responding to legit criticism and help like this. It's all over the thread.

Do you think that's what I was asking? Am I wondering if you spent a lot of time in synths and if you think you have good taste? Do you think I was asking if you think your features are better than some other synth?

What do you expect from a $50 piece of software?

Can you provide support? Can you provide updates? Can a professional be sure they can use this piece of software in a professional context? The answer can't be maybe / i guess / probably.

That's why it's a JOKE that you want to charge money for this.

And now you're going to tell me how it's better than Super Synth 5000 and Cloudverbmax. Doesn't matter. You can't charge for this "monster".

Super Synth 5000 and Cloudverbmax can provide support and updates and can be used by professionals.

Use git. Learn to set up testing. Start documenting where you are actually getting the code from so you don't get popped on a license violation. This is just for starters, so you can even approach coming up with a sellable product.

I appreciate the advice. I like sharing my opinions on my synth. You are free to disagree with the value or worth of it all you want and question support all you want. You are free to tell people to quit on projects they are working hard on all you want to. We all have free will and responsibility on how we engage with others.

I'm free to continue working on this cool project and to wrap it up asap and not devolve in justifying it or convincing anyone how serious I take licensing. I hope you don't give up so easily on projects in your life, especially not with ai doing all the work.

I'm going to continue sharing my progress, ideas, setbacks, as usual, which is my main intent. I love advice, but circular, repetitive, doubts, quitting talk I simply don't appreciate and is no longer constructive but destructive at this point, and pointless. For instance, I've been using git for the last two days, and I'm doing all the due diligence I can on licensing, so unless you have any other advice, will be focusing more on other issues.

Cheers,

[Tiles]

You might have misread my words, or I'm misunderstanding you. I've said it many times over, every time it's brought up, no gpl 3 code is permanently in the synth. I had test versions for cpu comparisions for surge in two places. I tried more but gpt wouldn't let me. The code was removed or new branches.

If you mean, I fed GPL3 code to agents for ideas, that is true. But isn't that what open source is for, to look at it and learn to some degree. Is it against GPL3 license to feed it to agents? This only took place in a few places. The VAST VAST VAST Majority of ANYTHING WITH A LICENSE AT ALL is MIT stuff - this is only for the delays and a few verbs. The rest, 95% of the synth is, hey, i want a per unison filter - then it's added. 5% is GPL derived for ideas when i didn't like the results. I feel like this is a broken circle but what more can I do. I'm literally reaching out to the coder on the MERE possibility I might have used the GPL3 to make an html facsimile that isn't even in my synth to see if it's okay TO IMPORT IT INTO my synth. Perhaps you aren't comprehending me.

I am requesting permission to use an HTML facimile of his code into my synth. Currently, I have unique code in my synth. I've sent him the code for him to make the decision.

Don't care? Go and tell another one

It is not about what you are saying, but how you are operating.

I am not claiming there is currently GPL code copy-pasted in your synth. That is not the point.

The issue is that you explicitly admitted to using GPLv3 code as a basis for development via AI agents to generate 'ideas' and logic. In legal terms, this is the definition of creating a derivative work. So the answer to your question is a clear yes, it is forbidden. Unless the entire project is open-sourced under the GPL, you are in breach of license. Your project is now effectively a GPL work. Congratulations.

The GPL license isn't just about copy-pasting strings of text. It's about the intellectual property and the logic. If your commercial, closed-source product is derived from GPL code, you are in violation of that license.

I cannot evaluate or approve this, nor is it my job to do so. This is a matter for legal counsel, not an informal discussion. Yet, you have provided enough detail here to create a significant legal liability for yourself.

It is of course your choice to simply ignore the problem. But you are playing a dangerous game with your own money and reputation. If you want a product that is legally safe for commercial sale, a strict clean-room implementation is the only way to resolve this ambiguity. And this means from scratch.

[Touch The Universe]

Ah, I didn't know that, if that is the case, I'll need to look closer at the prompts I used to see which were GPL3 inspired to remove it, or redesign it. If it becomes too tedious then open source it is!

I am honestly not opposed to the idea at all

[Tiles]

Yeah it is really this dramatic with GPL. That's pretty much why a lot of us avoid GPL code when we're building something closed-source.

You can also sell GPL products by the way, the license doesn't forbid that. Ardour does it for example. Just make sure that you provide the source code to your users then.

EDIT: I strongly suggest auditing the licenses of all your other sources as well. While permissive licenses like MIT, BSD, and Apache 2.0 are generally compatible with commercial releases (provided you maintain the copyright notices), GPL is a different story. Be aware that strict GPLv2 code, specifically versions without the 'or later' clause, is even incompatible with GPLv3.

The general rule is that the most restrictive license governs the final work. In your current case, that means the entire project would effectively fall under the GPLv3.