Separate the libraries maybe?

Development
22

This whole thread really is a non issue in my opinion.

All developers have been aware of VCV business strategy for V2.
And have been aware that their plugins will be used in v2.

And on top of that, all active developers have been granted a free license for V2 Pro (vst).

If you ask me, the Facebook conversation, is typical gaslighting.
(Glad i left that platform long ago!)

8 Likes
23

I don’t talk for all, just want to see how other people are thinking

24

:heart:

me too

25

sorry I’m not a native speaker, I don’t understand what this means, I google it but still don’t see how it fits the conversation.

26

It means all developers were well aware of the situation.

Any developer that wouldn’t agree would have taken appropriate action for their plugin.

Are you a developer?

27

manipulacion , y yo estoy deacuerdo

28

You’re sorta tied in because you’re distributing your plugin through the official plugin registry. You could for instance make it chargable there, and distribute the free version yourself. Or do like Vult and make two versions.

1 Like
29

That 's a very reasonable proposition.

30

Exactly. The OP argument seems to be about how some developers may be disgruntled with anyone selling freely contributed work (I removed profit sharing peeves from my thoughts as they could always make their same plugins commercial) and my response as a user is rather than be faced with tools that I can use in one place and not another I’d rather not have them at all.

1 Like
31

The price is $9.99, not $30. Just mentioning this for accuracy, not as an argument one way or the other.

1 Like
32

Are there any developers of free modules that don’t want their module in the paid version?

Separate libraries will make the situation with which modules are available where worse.

Devs that don’t want to run in the paid software could detect in the module that it’s the paid version and not function, but that behaviour just seems bad for everyone. Maybe just don’t submit free modules to the library if you want money from their use.

5 Likes
34

To be fair all developers have had 2 years to think about whether they’re comfortable to have their plugin load equally in the free+open source program and the commercial program. So bit late if you ask me…

Also, people seem to have so many misconceptions about Open Source. There is nothing about Open Source as such that precludes you from selling Open Source products. If someone wants to make an open source anything that they never want to be used in a for-sale product, they really need to choose a license that says so, and of course that plugin will never be admitted into the Rack Library.

I don’t think there’s a moral question here at all, just confusion. And it’s not like Andrew is making money off of selling someone’s open source plugin. This has the smell of “Free software extremism”, just stirring up trouble where none exists.

9 Likes
35

I think it’s always dangerous for someone to speak on behalf of another group. (the OP is posting a ‘development’ question, whilst not being a developer)

if a developer really has an issue, let them come here and discuss it. because as an open source developer myself, I see the idea as being fundamentally flawed. its really not how open source works… open source, often lives in parallel with commercial products, its not an issue.

(also lets remember open source = libre/freedom … not just free beer!)

also the idea that plugins would start to only run in particular versions of a hosts, is not what most end-users would want… imagine VSTs that could only run in a particular DAW

if the OP real motive is “lets cripple the commercial version to make it all free” then I think thats pretty naive, the commercial version will help fund the dev of the open source host.

vcvrack is a fantastic piece of software, generously made available to everyone… appreciate what you have for free… not what you has to be paid for. also if you can afford it, buy PRO to help fun/support the development.

13 Likes
36

I for one consider building modules for VCV Rack. After and because of the VCV 2 release, I’m really excited about it finally living natively in my DAW. I’m also a big fan of FOSS.

Everybody is free to charge money for their modules, but when it comes to me charging money for mine: I really don’t see any impact on that from whether the person using my code has paid for the platform it runs or not. Moral or otherwise. Of course I’m happy if the platform it runs on can also be obtained for free.

This is the case with my free (and small) Voltage Modular modules. They run on a platform that is not free by default, and they’re free, and the platform can be free, and that is all awesome. Running and maintaining the platform takes time, full time effort, while I can and want to afford making those modules in my free time as a passion project.

To each their own of course, and I understand that there are purists who want “everything free or no contribution from me” in a project. I think that’s unfortunate. Open source doesn’t have to be that radical.

5 Likes
37

Hmm, I’m actually wondering now: is it possible to have open source modules but charge for them in the library?

This means that they should have both license=open and license=premium basically.

A license=[open,premium] if you will?

38

Developer of LyraeModules here, and I am actually a smidgen uncomfortable by the idea of the code I write for free being a selling point for a paid ecosystem. Of course, it’s already the case that this free code is running on a paid platform for Windows users (though I do mostly use Linux), and clearly a large number of consumer products run open source software under the hood where the developer never got a donation.

To me there are three things here that make this a tad different:

  1. Open source projects are already being used in the advertising itself, from the inclusion of Audible/Mutable Instruments in the advertising material to the front page claim about the module count.
  2. In a way, the open source project is ‘feature limited’ (not able to run in a VST without paying the platform cost) by the paid/free model, while this wasn’t the case previously. Even if the developers had heads up this would be the case, it’s still a bit odd.
  3. Pro’s changes to be able to run as a VST do incur some cost in programming time- having to deal with the framebuffer thing incurred by the VST being open & closed can be a pain depending on the plugin’s reliance on NanoVG, fonts, etc. - this to some extent means that the devs are being asked to do extra work to update to support a feature mostly made necessary for a version that’s behind a pay wall.

All of that said, no, I don’t think we should split the libraries. but I do think some changes should be made

  1. I think open source devs should be able to leave their project open source but make it a paid plugin in the library, I know @xandra-max wanted to do this but there was some communication issuse there. I’d also like to do this, as I think it strikes a good balance and encourages those that want it to free to see the actual work that goes into making a plugin
  2. I think free plugins should be able to have significantly more prominent donation buttons in the library. I still don’t expect free plugins to make much, but I think it’d be better.

@Vortico has already expressed why he’s against 1) - it could lead to the appearance of third party libraries / tools that are used for grabbing the ‘rest of the library’ and that is bad for everyone. While I see this concern, I personally don’t think it will be a problem. He did express interest in 2) and there was some back and forth about what that may look like visually and how prominent it would end up being. I’d like to see the donation button on free modules be just as prominent as the buy button on premium.

edit: referring to Audible/Mutable may have be a bad choice as an example, but given the code is still originally from Émilie Gillet, I think it applies.

5 Likes
39

interesting thread
I sincerely hate the VST part
And I hate all the insult I received during last days coming everywhere from new users crybabies coming in only for the VST
and lamenting because they paid $99

I wish I could exclude my modules from their libs using a blacklist of users

14 Likes
40

I don’t understand this point of view. Each plugin is it’s own entity, both commercially and technically. How exactly do ‘paid plugins make money off of the free plugins’?

If paid plugins were the only kind (i.e. Chrry Mdular) the Rack ecosystem would definitely be poorer. But I can’t make the leap from that to paid plugins unfairly making money from free plugins.

I’m not trying to debate or contradict you, I sincerely don’t understand the point being made.

2 Likes
41

With many more users come many more bad users! And I can see why the payment may be making people feel entitled to support from the whole, largely volunteer, ecosystem, rather than just from VCV. That’s something that I hope will settle down/get managed as things go forwards.

As a huge fan of your modules, thanks for hanging in there. If it’s any comfort, your modules are going to be used by the good users, many of whom you will never hear from, to make some extremely fine music in the upcoming years…

Sincerely interested–other than the issue above, what are your biggest problems with the VST? Have you been hitting the stuff that’s more annoying to transfer over (framebuffering, context, etc.)?

3 Likes
42

Antonio, haters gonna hate. There are hundreds, thousands even, who deeply appreciate your work. I deeply appreciate your work! Thank you!

The VST-only noobs are going to be a thorn in everyone’s side until they figure things out. It would be better if they’d just ask their questions on the Community forums instead of taking out their frustrations on people who have been tireless volunteers, like you.

There isn’t anything else like Rack under the sun, unless you consider things like Linux, where the ecosystem is a combination of free and paid software.

7 Likes