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.
I have to agree with this. If VCV were to allow open source premium plugins then hopefully they would provide some documentation about what open source is in order to dispel misconceptions and to avoid the SlimeChild situation, I’m guessing a lot of the people who complained did so largely out of ignorance.
I’ve used, and contributed to FOSS for 35 years. I’ve had to learn the differences between BSD, GPL2 and GPL3 licenses are. What it is “about” in terms of what you’re saying is what you’ve decided it’s “about.”
There is nothing about requiring closed source for commercial plugin that violates the legal status or the spirit of open source software. Feel free to disagree with @vortico about it. But it’s only on your say-so that it isn’t what free and open source software is “about.”
I really didn’t want to get into an argument about this. I will read your reply but not respond any further on this thread.
I never said that, I said that not allowing commercial opensource plugins is not in line with said opensource licenses.
At the very least it’s extremely hypocritical (considering that most of the value of VCV comes from the vast collection of opensource content). FOSS licenses clearly allow the commercial sale, so yes these licenses are certainly “about” this. It’s one of the intrinsic “four freedoms” inherent to the entire endeavor.
You saying that Ardour selling their software is “silly” is just a super weird remark, considering that these are developers that are making a living from this very act.
It’s just sad to see that VCV thinks that proprietary plugins are allowed to be commercial, but opensource plugins are not. This clearly does not support those developers and referring to “but there is a donation button” is kind of an insult in my book.
Yes but are you the (sub) average user? Does it matter that maybe 10-20% of users will actually go and compile a plugin, while the rest will opt for the convenience of integration with the library and direct support with updates etc.?
I’d rather not assume anything, but of course it’s not up to us. VCV doesn’t allow opensource developers to sell their work and that’s just sad to see.
If I take MIT/BSD/CC0 based plugin code, then make a new design, new name and make some “proprietary changes” I can then sell the resulting proprietary binaries in the store?
(honest question, as this is of course fully allowed by said opensource licenses)
I can’t be sure, but I doubt that you would be allowed to sell that plugin. In February I tried to sell a proprietary fork of my own GPL3-licensed plugin, including a set of exclusive visual features and options, but was informed that VCV was not interested. At the time, I was not publicly distributing binaries of my plugin.
It’s hard to say I’ve “left” when I still follow the community and still have hopes to complete unfinished business with my modules. But I have since had to take an extended break from development in order to focus on my health.
You must be one of those “unicorns”. There’s dozen of us! /jk
In all seriousness, glad to know there was someone else with similar ideas.
It is not as far out there as some might lead to believe.
On the Ardour topic, their approach to selling binaries together with donations and a few contract work on the side (Waves Tracks Live was based on Ardour, and helped fund some development, for example) is something that quite a few companies can be jealous of.
They were doing subscription-based payments “before it was cool”. They are doing quite well financially-speaking, which is not something we can say about all audio companies at the moment.
Human behavior is a factor here on the user side. I’d wager that the number of people who could afford to donate $5 to a Rack plugin developer (and who like a plugin enough to want to do that) is an order of magnitude higher than the number of people who actually donate.
As much as building source code is only a small inconvenience for some Rack users, the current donation process is similarly inconvenient. (Often you wind-up paying toll to an awful company like PayPal, too.)
I think it’s also important not to understate the value of Rack’s built-in update system. Subscribing to that notification stream and being able to update with a couple clicks is a major benefit for most users. The inconvenience of building from source is potentially incurred many times, if a plugin has a particularly active developer.
In addition to allowing sale of open source plugins, VCV could allow developers to make their free plugins Pay-What-You-Want, as seen on Bandcamp. I think this would also see more use than the current donation options.
It would be interesting to see how that worked out in practice - I suspect as most don’t donate, most would want to pay 0 - It might lead to a bit of an increase though… who knows.
This is simply because people like getting things for free. Getting something for nothing feels good. They may not mind paying for them at all if that’s the only (convenient) option there is, but they’ll take free if its there.
I’d love to know the percentage of people who pay ‘0’ at Bandcamp.
I’ve put 0 in at bandcamp many times but I’ve also started paying for what I get. As a Rack user I can definitely attest to being extremely grateful for all the work that is available for free and I would gladly pay something for all of them.
However, a donate link in the context of the module is not effective. When I am in Rack and doing anything with a module the last thing I want to do it is to come out of Rack and figure out how to make a payment, I opened rack to be creative and make sounds. If there was an option for it when subscribing I definitely would, it’s a much more suitable place for it to be.
I mean surely if even 10% of people paid something then VCV makes more money and developers get more money. It might also incentivize devs to create higher quality modules or to push the boundaries further.
I actually considered it, then learned it isn’t allowed. It’s really not easy to set up a vcv build system, esp for someone who has never used a command line. I kind of doubt that the open source would significantly cannibalize sales.
Why would I do that? because I’m lazy. I like VCV building all my binaries.
I’ll be perfectly honest: I have 4 modules that have been nearly-complete for about a year now. During that year, I have had no desire to finish or publish them, and I’m not sure when I will in the future. Aside from a number of wonderful and supportive people, who I am very grateful for, I broadly don’t feel welcome in the VCV community. I prefer to live a very private online life, so I won’t get into specific details here, but I do not get the sense that this community is for people like me.
That being said, I’ll continue to support Substation indefinitely, and I do periodically check the forum for DMs, etc. And who knows–I may change my mind and release those plugins in the future. I may also just port them to standalone VSTs/AUs.
Edit: it’s probably worth mentioning that my day job is very draining and has left me significantly burned out. It’s probably likely that I’ll change my mind about VCV once I’m able to find a less stressful job.
/jk
- It might lead to a bit of an increase though… who knows.