I guess that there is some well thought out logic behind it but that seems like a really odd stance for VCV to take. I would be glad to pay for ‘premuim’ modules even if they are available to download and compile myself, and I’m sure a lot of people would be interested. Seems like a missed opportunity which only harms open source devs - instead of relying on users to remember to take the time to donate, they can choose to pay for it through the library and have the modules in sync with the library. Seems like a win-win for everyone involved.
Thanks! After a first round of easy optimizations, here’s where it’s at now CPU-wise (with the default CloudSeed preset):
But it will need some more work, SIMD I think is one thing I will try (I hope I can get this done). The interface will be a beast as you say(!), but as someone said in the other thread, no need to put CV control on everything, so that will help. Still not sure where this will lead, but still exploring!
I’ve not left, just having a break since I’ve been getting very burned out from my day job lately. Coding all day makes me want to work on other non-coding stuff in the evenings, but it’s not like I won’t come back to making and updating modules.
My guess is VCV wants to avoid the perceived potential negative publicity that might result from selling open source software in the library.
“Why are you selling stuff that I can get for free elsewhere??? What a rip off!” etc…
I agree though that if it was marketed and communicated in the right way, it could be a good alternative to the ‘donations’ system that is really not very effective.
Having said that, someone made a generous donation to MindMeld yesterday (possibly after seeing my post here haha) - so if you’re reading this Nick - thank you!
I raised the donation/tipjar links on the forum the other day and it was clear it needs to be better advertised. Maybe VCV could run a biannual ‘tip the devs’ drive?
I think there is a workaround, given that slimechildaudio managed to publish the commercial Substation plugin, and then later publish an open source version without any of the branding.
But based on Coriander Pines’ experience, Andrew’s policy may be wise. Read the 2nd edit in this initial post.
That is a slightly different take on the matter.
The plugin was initially proprietary and commercial, and people that bought it may had the expectation that it would remain so. Super shitty to get upset about this though, specially considering the opensource version was a step back vs the proprietary one.
I still dont think that is worth the gate keeping though. Seems to me this is a matter of education. People that dont know any better and expect opensource = free and fully supported to everyone shouldnt dictate how the developers do things.
Being opensource doesnt make it easy to build or maintain. And doesnt give anyone the right to make demands over the opensource project.
Can be matter of communication too. Something can be open but still have commercial binaries.
What you pay for is the convenience. It is alike a “service fee”.
If this is clear for users, I think they will understand.
But the plan was announced up front - it was never a secret that the code base would be made open source.
I agree, I would like to think that proper communication could help. But human behavior is what it is, unfortunately. Not everyone wants to be educated.
Ah, apologies, I was not aware this was the case. Because of the brutal response to the open-sourcing I assumed it was. Which makes everything even worse, wow…
“I payed for it, so you must pay for it too” is a terrible, terrible attitude to have. We can just be happy for others.
If this were to ever happen, it would be good to get a community consensus behind it - so when the inevitable “Why are you selling free stuff!?!” comments appear, the community could help fend those off and educate rather than VCV having to deal with/defend them on their own.
The SlimeChild thing was really sad, a very accomplished bundle that only cost $15 and people moaning about a free version that didn’t even have the graphics etc.
I have to take a look to cardinal, but I will miss loot of modules there, I use close source modules primarily, vutl for instance, @falkTX , I’m not sure, but reading the plugging guidelines , you could seel it outside the library (some developers do this) and release the source code, it is grey to me , so asking to @Vortico maybe it could be posible, that could be incredible have a patchbay among others Carla fine jack features in the VCV rack
I have sort of the mirror experience. After I stopped making free VCV modules I started doing my day job better. I think a lot of it is the limited brain power to ponder stuff at odd times, now that I’m not pondering VCV issues I can ponder work issues in the middle of the night. Turned out it was something I really relied on.
It seems like a significant number of users got upset about having paid for that binary only for the source code to be released later for free. And that was when the open source version was different - it did not include the graphics.
Did those angry SlimeChild users fully understand and accept the difference between a binary and the source code? Clearly not. They just got upset that ‘something they paid for’ got released for free.
And in the scenario being discussed here the source code version (once built) and the binary version would result in an identical plugin.
So please don’t twist my words and imply that I am somehow insulting users. I’m not. I’m looking at the evidence of what has happened before and suggesting something similar would likely happen again.
You guys all know that Open Source plugins have a ‘donate’ button?
Open Source Projects CAN be commercial. Red Hat Linux comes to mind. The point being they’re selling support/new development for their particular Linux distro not Linux itself.
You can even have a ‘donate’ link in the plugin. Open source means users can get it for free, and even hack out their own unique version if they so choose. But if they want to support the developer, NOTHING is stopping them.
For instance you could send a direct message to @synthi and say “HERE’S A $100! CODE FASTER!”
Though I notice @synthi DOESN’T have a donate button.
Well no. Opensource means the source code is available. A better example is Ardour (considering we are in the audio space), which is a commercial DAW that sells their binaries. Anyone can download the sourcecode and build it themselves, but if you want to receive a ready made binary supported by them you have to pay up.
Donation buttons clearly do not work as has been mentioned many times already. “forcing” developers to make their code proprietary just so they can be commercial is just a really weird stance and only enforces all the misconceptions around open source.
Argue with @vortico, not me. Are there seriously developers who want to charge for plugins in the Rack store, but also want to open source? Who are these unicorns?
As for Ardour, that method of working is kind of silly. They could be open source, make their binaries available for free, and still charge for support. They aren’t ‘selling binaries’ they’re selling support and ongoing development. Charging for binaries that any determined user could build themselves seems like an inconvenience, not a business model.
