I agree, “Send your idea/offer to VCV, agree on offer” sounds really bad. I understand having some form of quality control over what gets released as commercial but the terms should be transparent and pre-written for everybody. What i would like to do is read VCV terms, decide if i want to develop for it and if i do want to develop for VCV i just do it and submit it to VCV and if the quality passes then all good. I believe an even ground to be the best solution. As far as “what the industry is doing” who cares ? Let them do personalized deals and shoot themselves in the foot, VCV can do better with having blanket terms. Depending on the level of success for v1 It could start a race within developers, granted everybody has an even footing.
2 Likes
I informed @sanderbaancentrum that I will be understanding and accommodating with commercial licensing since both of you have apparently been working on a plugin for the last 6 months. If the relicense happens, simply email VCV to discuss your plugin.
When did I say this? If you sell through the VCV Plugin Manager, you can have DRM that hooks into the Plugin Manager API, and I’ll even release a small DRM library for VCV vendors to use a couple months after Rack v1 is released. A few vendors are waiting on me to do this, since it is a requirement for them before distributing their plugins. The DRM library might even be included in VCV-branded plugins, although the “protection” setting will be set to “low” to prevent corner case difficulties with users’ offline computers/etc.
What I explained in my email that I won’t allow, and I’m sure nearly all users would agree, is that plugins listed as “FREE” on the Plugin Manager should not be restricted by third-party DRM requiring a license is purchased from some outside party. This would make the plugins not free, and thus the “FREE” button would lose users’ trust.
I thank you greatly for your honestly and openness in answering my questions. I will consider developing a “commercial licensing application form” in the future that addresses many of your concerns about public rules and pricing, but currently it is too early to handle every vendor systematically. For example, how do I establish a good set of hard rules without first talking to several vendors with a diverse set of preferences? The negotiations with vendors (like Stellare Modular) in the near future will determine the guidelines in the distant future. VCV is a small company now, so it would be a bad move to solidify commercial plugin guidelines at this point, but as VCV grows and matures, public guidelines will be more appropriate. I hope everyone understands that inventing guidelines is a careful task that requires time and experience. For now, all vendors need to have a short business discussion over email, and your case is decided from there.
Here’s the rough timeline of upcoming news for the relicense.
It is nearly certain at this point that VCV will require royalties from commercial plugin vendors.
It is not certain yet of the wording of the NCPLE and contract text for commercial licenses. I’ll probably have to wait 2 weeks for that.
I’d like to pull out the Component Library and DSP library into new repos/submodules before v1 is stabalized.
I’ll be very busy for the next couple months after Rack v1 but should still be able to handle commercial plugin licensing via email.
I feel like I’m missing something in this schedule, but I’ll edit this post when I remember.
We have no plans for restricting commercial plugins based on functional similarity.
We do have plans for restricting commercial plugins that violate IP law/ethics.
2 Likes
Thank you for your answer. As I said, I am deeply convinced that you don’t want to misuse the situation. I’m just saying that these changes doesn’t seams to prevent a misuse of the situation, which might be a problem for setting a climate of mutual turst in any business relationship.
And I don’t express against this change of license, but I believe that this grey zone of “ethics reason” could benefit from being brightened up with a clear writen guideline, that would prevent any misuse of this situation.
I can’t think of hard guidelines yet, but here are some examples of things that violate IP ethics standards:
- You won’t be allowed to release a port of Mutable Instruments called “Clouds” due to the recommendation from the IP owner of the software to not use the name “Clouds” for derivative works. https://github.com/pichenettes/eurorack#guidelines-for-derivative-works
- You won’t be allowed clone an analog Eurorack module which uses different panel art but the same knob/port/component positions without permission from the Eurorack manufacturer. Although it might or might not be a legal violation, it is an ethical violation.
- Some small Eurorack manufacturers don’t bother trademarking their name. Regardless, you won’t be allowed to use the same name for your port without permission from the manufacturer.
2 Likes
As a user who has invested (time and money) in plugins that are not in the plugin manager and tools to build plugins (GECO) , I wonder what would happen if these manufacturers did not conform to this new license or pass the vcv rack approval.
I m not sure about laws, but I think that if version 0.x was licensed under BSD, re licensing to another type of license should not be so simple while v1 contains parts or derivatives of the previous version.
From my perspective it does not look much like what I understood as free and open software, where anyone can build a plugin and distribute it as they see fit, but on the other hand I think we should give Andrew a vote of confidence given that his decisions have always been balanced.
Then they would not legally be able to release a plugin which is linked/loaded by Rack v1 and uses its API.
It is simple: I own the copyright to Rack’s source code, and all its dependencies allow commercial/non-commercial redistribution/use, so I am able to license Rack v1 under terms of my choice, which I’ve proposed as GPLv3 + non-commercial plugin exception and commercial licensing options.
According to the Free Software Foundation and Open Source Initiative, it is fully free and open-source software, since FSF made and recommends the GPLv3, and GPLv3 is an OSI-approved license. In fact, it is more free than GPLv3 due to the exception and the ability to obtain a commercial license (which is not possible for most GPLv3-licensed software, such as Blender, Firefox, GIMP, and Linux. If you claim VCV Rack will not be free/open-source software, you must claim that these packages aren’t either).
1 Like
as I said I not understand much about laws
question
with this new license, someone like Omri will need your approval to distribute vcv rack files and get money in his patreon account ?
No. Non-software, such as patches, audio recordings, and screen recordings*, made with VCV Rack is not subject to Rack’s software license, in the same way that you can give a WAV made in Ableton Live to someone else without the other person buying a Live license.
*Screen recordings and screenshots typically contain panel graphics, so they are technically a derivative work, but virtually no one cares about this, and it could be covered under fair use in most cases. This problem only arises when the a screenshot showcases a panel design, such as commercial album artwork featuring VCV Scalar front-and-center for example.
2 Likes
This argument goes both ways. In a competitive market I can go through a single-market to make plugins for an API that work for a venerable blip of the market or I can go through an open bazaar to make plugins that work for nearly the entire audio software world.
Wait, I think the appeal to competition just backfired.
No, some German company tried something like this once. Nobody ended up using “Cubase” because commercial developers didn’t pay them enough to stay afloat.
Third party commits were actively discouraged.
I’ve been around people with PhD’s in ethics. What you are talking about sounds more like “whatever random clauses I come up with = ethics!”
I suppose I’ll ask them if there is a deontological/consequentialist/virtue ethics argument how the placement of a knob can be “unethical.”
You would like to think that, but I could very well chinese firewall/cleanroom a spec document and a second person implement it as headers under another license. This has been done effectively (cf. ReactOS) and since the GPL applies only when making a product available users would not violate the license by using plugins made with the clown world clone API.
The DMCA has also had provisions upheld in court that reverse engineering closed source is legally allowed if it is for compatibility reasons and the “stolen” code is a minimal set needed for things to run.
Nope, it really isn’t. For any one who’s been following the project it’s clear that it’s worked like this from the beginning.
The actual text of the license the program is distributed under completely refutes this.
I wasn’t around Rack then but I think @Vortico can choose how to manage his repo how he wants. You’re free to disagree with the strategy but he made a great piece of software, even in beta, which is why we’re all here. Since he didn’t encourage third party commits and then exploit them, I don’t think there’s an ethical problem. If he knew he might change the license he was probably right to discourage third party commits.
I take the point here to be that module clones which fall short of legal IP violations, but which function as look-alike, work-alike clones of hardware modules, and which are being sold commercially, are harming hardware Eurorack developers. Deontological argument: harming someone is wrong. Consequentialist argument: that will slow down development of precisely the module lines that people want to see, not to mention stopping (probably better-quality) official ports from ever reaching the Rack ecosystem. Virtue ethics argument: someone who is attempting to take commercial advantage of another company this way is not a virtuous person and they shouldn’t be enabled.
The appeal only backfired if your market/bazaar analysis is correct, and I don’t think it is.
I was doing digital recording, with n-Track Studio (remember that?), when VST 2.0 was released and when most of the better plugins on Windows were DirectX. You may have been as well. I remember those days well, and the context, and market, for digital audio software had nothing in common with the present. This is back to strategy, not ethics, and I don’t think Steinberg’s strategy in 1996-99 has much to do with what any audio company, including VCV, should (and could) do now.
1 Like
Many people here are debating around in circles now. I’ve addressed every reasonable concern, so there’s not much more I can say.
@sanderbaancentrum and @xtrememapping, your commercial plugin will be fine and you’ll still profit greatly from it if it’s as big as you say it is. No need to worry.
@Skrylar, if you’re concerned about the future success of Rack, I assure you there are far more significant factors/decisions that will affect the rollercoaster ups-and-downs of Rack’s growth.
I’d love to see more super-polished Eurorack ports, more VCV Rack in academia, more Computer Music tutorial series, more presence at conferences, more powerful development tools and DSP research, better integration into people’s workflows and recording studios, more compatibility with people’s laptops, well-known artists inventing entirely new synthesis concepts with Rack, maybe video modular, maybe headless embedded systems, whatever. It’s amazing that I can even begin to think of these things for a product which is entirely free software as defined by FSF, whose principles I respect. This relicensing procedure is a tiny rollercoaster bump in some direction (either up or down, who knows) compared to the big tasks, and if I spent as much time talking about the big decisions as I have this one, Rack v2 would take 50 years to “talk about”.
5 Likes
You’re quite obviously mistaken… this is a rather large change to the way VCV operates and how Devs fit into the picture.
Sorry you can’t see something as basic as Devs being free to sell outside of the plugin manager and now being required to get Andrews approval of their designs and agree to a split as the first and most obvious changes.
It’s doubtful the program ever would’ve achieved the momentum or excitement it now has if this had been the situation from the beginning.
1 Like
I think you are wrong about this. The momentum and excitement has been because the functionality of the software outshines any other virtual modular (even in beta), because it is open source, because there is a growing number of people developing quality FOSS modules for it through an easy to use API (or so I am told, not being a dev) and because of the community that has grown around it (that has flowed from this).
There are, as Andrew notes, only a handful of devs who want to sell commercial modules outwith the plugin manager (for reasons that have not been clearly defined). The vast majority of commercial devs seem to be happy to work within it.
If you are talking about ‘momentum and excitement’ within commercial devs who are waiting to jump in when DRM is in place then I can’t comment but presumably they are happy to use the plugin manager.
Your statement needs further argument/justification.
3 Likes
@Skrylar can you elaborate on this? I don’t get the reference or maybe I’m not aware of the circumstances you’re referring to. But I’m definitely interested to know!
He’s referring to Steinberg, Cubase, and VST.
Personally speaking, if I were to develop and sell modules I would have no problems going through the plug-in manager and paying some percentage directly to VCV… this seems most logical and basic to me.
I’m glad Andrew has figured out a model that he believes to be sustainable… However, we can also say that this is basically like every other commercial audio software company with a framework that engenders a cottage-type industry of module makers.
Cherry, Softube, Reaktor, etc… being the obvious alternatives.
I’m pretty sure some people were scratching their heads and wondering aloud how this was going to work financially from the beginning.
Also, there are some new theoretical and logistical challenges around this as a result of these legal changes. I’m sure they can be worked out, but they are now present and we are trying to anticipate the speed-bumps that may occur as a result. Many concerns have been raised here and I won’t bother repeating them from earlier in the thread.
Do people need patents now before submitting designs? This sort of thing…
The main point was I was being told repeatedly nothing is changing when it most certainly is.
A minor technical niggle, but it was irking me.
I’m not opposed to these changes but it does make it look a lot more like other commercial software which is where my comment was coming from… what would have been the unique draw in the beginning if this “Gateway” had been in place?
It has to be acknowledged that much of the excitement has come from the brilliant and crazy modules the Devs have seen fit to share… how many of them would have done so if they knew that a corral would eventually be built. We can’t pretend that they didn’t put blood and tears into this as well at Andrews invitation for the past two years or so… I think now is the time to address the tough questions.