Obxd synthesizer

[Yeager]

There is a link to that page from 2Dat site :

https://obxd.wordpress.com/

Both Win and Mac downloadable for free.

But they did a "Sloppy Job" the clear button is called clean, and the spread knob is mislabelled as osc2 detune, and osc 2 detune knob is missing.

Today I received a curious email informing that a fork has been made.

The guy uses the nickname "twodat20" (very similar to 2DaT, it makes confusion), and this fork is distributed by a company that I don't know, named Soshi Studio.

https://soshistudio.wordpress.com/

The "Mac download" works. But the "Windows Download" doesn't, so it seems that to get it on Windows it is needed to pay. To get it the visitor seems to MUST use the button "Donate". So of course it is not a donation... it is a purchase!

15 dollars (13 euros).

I'm not interested at all, and even I wonder if it is really legal. Especially with that confusion between the nicknames.

[chk071]

Interesting way to bypass the JUCE license restriction.

[ras.s]

I'm not interested at all, and even I wonder if it is really legal.

It's perfectly legal to sell software that is licensed under the GPL, given that the source code is also provided. And it's just as legal for any of us to grab the source code, compile it and then distribute the binary. (Search Google for "build vst plugin" to get started.)

Interesting way to bypass the JUCE license restriction. :P

JUCE is also GPL software, unless one buys a copy that isn't under the GPL license, which then allows for selling closed source software. This isn't bypassing anything, it's standard practice. These days the host software Ardour does the same; the source is available for anyone, but the binaries have to be bought (or subscribed to their membership, to be exact). The binaries for it are available through other means, though. Here's one list of commercial software with available source code -- it's not uncommon and it's not bypassing anything.



I wonder if this is the original developer, but asking a little something in return for the development time .. ?

[chk071]

Actually, if you want to use JUCE, you HAVE to release your plugin under the GPL, and make it available for free.

Open source projects may use JUCE for free.
Commercial releases using JUCE require JUCE Indie or JUCE Pro.

So, yes, by saying you have to donate to download and use the plugin, the guy is actually violating these terms. At least if i don't miss something.

[Yeager]

They are FREE to download as far as I can tell...

Strange... I just downloaded the windows version 10 minutes ago, but now it's gone...(again)

Actually, if you want to use JUCE, you HAVE to release your plugin under the GPL, and make it available for free.

Open source projects may use JUCE for free.
Commercial releases using JUCE require JUCE Indie or JUCE Pro.

So, yes, by saying you have to donate to download and use the plugin, the guy is actually violating these terms. At least if i don't miss something.

[BlackWinny]

I don't know if it is actually required to pay. I think that's more a kind of clumsiness from the guy. The download link for Mac seems to work, but the download link for Windows don't. Is it intentional or not... I don't know. But the fact that the link to donate is already there (and seems to work perfectly) while the link for Windows downloads don't work lets me somewhat in trouble.

And that choice to have used a nickname so close to the one of the original developer lets me even more in trouble because it is obviously done to create a confusion.

And in addition, the name of the product is almost the same as the original... and the release number is already 1.1 as if it was not a fork but a continuation of the original!

[ras.s]

chk071, do note that the software is available for free: the source code is provided for everyone with a Internet connection.

I'm under the impression that the free version of JUCE is under the GPL, and if it is, that sentence then violates the license itself as commercial use is allowed under it. If they have their own license, then it's of course different. I don't have a copy that I could check on this system.


http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... mmercially

If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then distribute and sell that new program commercially? (#GPLCommercially)

You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL.

These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in a program of your own.

That's why the Microsoft guy, Ballmer or someone, compared the GPL to a virus. It spreads.




edit: Just to answer my own curiosity ...

https://github.com/julianstorer/JUCE/
"Most JUCE modules are shared under the GNU Public Licence
(GPLv2, v3, and the AGPLv3). This means that the code can
be freely copied and distributed, and costs nothing to use
in other GPL applications. One module (the juce_core module)
is permissively licensed under the ISC."

https://forum.juce.com/t/open-source-li ... nges/10604
"The juce_core module will now be available under a permissive ISC license - that means that everyone is free to use that module commercially and to link it with any other code without needing a commercial license. (Thanks to Vinnie for sponsoring this change!) Hopefully this'll attract some interest from server/command-line writers for whom juce's core classes could be useful.

All the other modules are going to stay under the normal GPL/commercial system, but I've tweaked it slightly to also allow them to be used under GPLv3 or the AGPLv3. I don't think these changes will affect very many people, but I've had requests for this, as it can be a headache to create open-source projects that combine libraries under different versions of the GPL."


That is, JUCE can be used also for commercial GPL software, though those are rather rare (usually monetised by selling support) and practically non-existent in the audio plugin world. ISC there refers to Internet Software Consortium license, which is GPL compatible.

Doesn't really matter in this case, as the new version/fork is also available as a binary version.

[chk071]

I don't know if it is actually required to pay. I think that's more a kind of clumsiness from the guy. The download link for Mac seems to work, but the download link for Windows don't. Is it intentional or not... I don't know. But the fact that the link to donate is already there (and seems to work perfectly) while the link for Windows downloads don't work lets me somewhat in trouble.

And that choice to have used a nickname so close to the one of the original developer lets me even more in trouble because it is obviously done to create a confusion.

And in addition, the name of the product is almost the same as the original... and the release number is already 1.1 as if it was not a fork but a continuation of the original!

Alright. I thought you'd actually have to donate to get a download link. Nevermind then. Wonder why he doesn't continue on his old site though, with the old user name.

[Autobot]

I could download the win version seems now to work anyway anybody know whats different beside the GUI (which is kinda awkward imo) ?

[DrewDale]

Any news on the OB12 inspired skin layzer was making ?

[Yeager]

The clear button is called clean, and the spread knob is mislabelled as osc2 detune, and osc 2 detune knob is missing.

That's all I could find

I could download the win version seems now to work anyway anybody know whats different beside the GUI (which is kinda awkward imo) ?

[layzer]

Any news on the OB12 inspired skin layzer was making ?

its done. just trying to finish up the Matrix-12 gui to include in the next skin pack. hang tight

M12GUI.JPG

and the ob12:

obxdob12.jpg

[Aloysius]

Very, very nice. Well done.

[jbraner]

+1
I like them both!

[HunterKiller]

2DaT wrote:
Before the actual update i want to test a new 12 db filter model. Just curious whether you notice the difference to old one .
It is also lighter on cpu when idle.
There are also a bunch of "hidden" parameters which are not on GUI, but you can control them from you DAW.

It is beta, it may crash/explode/stutter, so be aware.

Only win32 yet.

What happened to 2DaT, why is he not still around?