Reminds me of DISTRHO - Cardinal Mini - Plugins - BETA - MOD Audio Forum
Similar ideas - running a subset of Rack modules in a modular environment on real hardware.
The question of non-commercial use is a good one, but easily work around - just pick modules and assets that do not have that restriction. The use of VCV component library still falls under non-commercial clause though… so something for VCV to see with them
As far as I can tell the situation is the same as running on a PC:
Read the announcements. The entire 4ms Meta software stack is Open Source.
Opensource does not mean “not commercial”, read the software licenses.
CC-NC is specifically not compatible with FOSS licensing, this has been discussed endlessly already.
Shipping such artwork with commercial products is problematic.
VCV feels they can get away with this on Rack2Pro because they technically don’t ship the modules with the plugin directly.
Perhaps the same would apply here, where the artwork would only get packaged once the user prepares their patch for the 4MS module.
It’s definitely a grey area to work in.
Although this runs on a baremetal system and afaik doesn’t use the Rack engine under the hood (if I remember my conversation with 4MS at Superbooth correctly).
Dan is explicitly asking permission for any modules included in the official firmware (which will be open-source on day one). Even though I had been working on integrating HetrickCV for the past few weeks, he still double-checked with me before including it in the announcement. Additionally, even though Andrew at Nonlinear Circuits had previously given me permission to MIT license the NLC emulations, Dan still had me reach out again to show Andrew the Meta Module and ask if it was okay before including the emulations on there. Even though the license allowed it, it’s a different request asking for them to be included on hardware.
Other VCV developers have reached out to Dan to ask if their work can be included. He’s definitely pursuing a route of approval and permission instead of just adding whichever module is available. To my knowledge, nothing CC-NC is on here.
This is all great news–technological and sociolegal. Thanks for the updates (and your participation), @trickyflemming! I wouldn’t have expected anything else from 4ms but it’s still good to hear. Very excited about this not just as a module but as another driver for and long term health indicator of the Rack ecosystem.
My main question to you is: why is this relevant?
Explicit waiver for NC/ND is tricky imo, but just want to make people aware that adding “random” modules will not be possible (hope we agree on this?)
But sure, if these specific modules don’t “suffer” from the CC licensing problems then that is great! 
It’s maybe worth saying that there are limits on the firmware binary size (a 16MB flash chip) so only a relatively small subset of modules could be present at any time. Of course it’s open source, so people could customize which modules are built as they see fit.
the poly versions of the modules are on the meta module too?
What I’m wondering is, will we see the 4ms modules in regular VCV Rack? I would love to have an Ensemble Oscillator again.
“Almost all” 4ms modules in VCV Rack. We don’t know if the more complex ones will make it.
(This module is also a computer, just a different form factor than a laptop.)
Technically? Sure (as @joopvanderlinden obviously knows). When I hear performing musicians like Joop talk about avoiding computers onstage, I take them to mean that they (very reasonably) want to avoid running modern multitasking OSs on stage. Given how bare-metal the 4ms Rack platform seems to be, the starting odds of a crash should be a lot lower than any general-purpose platform (assuming it’s executed properly, as I suspect it will be). Consider that all MIDI controllers have computers on board, but they rarely crash–and if they do, it’s mitigated in a performance context by the fact that they reboot very quickly. @trickyflemming notes above that Meta boots in about two seconds, which is a lot better than five minutes of “uhhh, hold on” as you futz with your laptop.
The fact that Meta will be running a more curated set of modules should also help with stability–users can choose modules and module combinations that will have been extensively tested in the field.
Anyway, my prediction: more prone to crashing than a discrete-component Moog ladder filter, but less than any Mac/Windows/Linux configuration available.
Kind of cool, but if you already use Modular and VCV with a DAW and don’t play live then not much attraction. For the money I could add a load more expert sleepers style modules and get way more I/O.
I imagine the primary user base for this would be those that want to combine virtual modular (VCV) with hardware, without using a computer. Probably there are a lot of folk that relish that capability.
If you are already happy using VCV with hardware and a DAW, then no, I shouldn’t think this would be a high priority.
I don’t see how you can make that statement. It may end up being true, but I don’t think even an estimated price has been announced.
Well I spent about £250 to get second hand ES-3 and 6 modules, basically 6 outputs from the rack and 8 into the rack. This has the same and SonicState were guessing it will be nearer a grand. But, yes if it comes out under £300 then I may well get one myself.
Exactly. The most common problem on stage is failing usb connections, by the way.
As Dave said, I think it is mostly about mixing hardware and software without relying on a laptop. So mostly live use, yes probably, but not only… I see it as a way to complement my rack in a very flexible manner that would not require me using my studio computer (that is generaly my work computer) on stage… If I have the money I’ll probably want one…
OT, but that’s the most common problem in my recording studio as well! I don’t buy new gear with MicroUSB ports–no matter how careful I am they seem to break almost immediately.
