“That’s a strange misunderstanding. You can use these panel files. What you can’t is to use the Mutable Instruments logo, name, and the original module names.”
I haven’t heard back from Befaco, but I remade panel graphics for their modules, removing their name (which honestly is very strange, why remove attribution?). I got response from Synthesis Technology that I need to remake E340 panel, remove their logo but can leave the layout as is, which I also did.
I didn’t remove Befaco from module pack name or change individual module names. Surely I can do that, if required. It would’ve been much easier for everyone if any such requirements had been clearly stated in Befaco repository, if they indeed do exist, and I knew what exactly to do.
Well, it’s a difficult question and I do not agree with you for two reasons (which I also explained in my email to you, let me know if other people not receiving my emails):
License is attached to a work as a whole, technically to a GitHub repository, for example. There’s nothing in any of the standard license texts that would suggest that they apply only to certain file types of anything like that. Again, there’s a lot of software libraries that contain not only source code but also some supporting files that required for the library to function. Of course they are always covered by the same license as the source code, and no-one would ever complain that I took their in-app web browser library (a real-life example from my projects) but should’ve taken out the icons for the back/forward buttons that are included.
I’m taking plugins’ code from the repos as a whole and for most plugins as-is (in rare cases some optimisations are applied). I find it very strange in this case to have to remove some parts of the work, delete their names, logos, etc. (As opposed if I were using their panel and logo for my own module, for example.) What’s in this for the developers? How does this coincide with the requirement to attribute the authors?
It’s common practice to add special restrictions and exceptions to the license file or readme if a developer desires. This is the case for VCV Rack itself, Fundamental plugin, AS plugin, Bidoo plugin and probably others. So you can’t say that any restrictions on the use of graphics and visual identity come “by default”. How does me compiling something for miRack instead of VCV Rack automatically makes it illegal to use certain files from the repository? Developers could say “for use with VCV Rack only” if they wanted only VCV Rack to benefit from their work though.
In your email you state that even your module layouts are copyrighted. To me, this is very unusual and definitely needs to be stated in the license file. Layout of module controls even comes from the source code, the use of which you say yourself is not restricted.
I’m not a lawyer but I consulted an expert in the topic. He told me exactly Pyer’s point. The licenses on a github repository do not apply to graphics. For example, in my Vult language repo I have an image with my logo and other graphics. Even when the code is MIT license, that does not apply to the graphic. I hold the copyright. If someone makes fair use of the logo, I will not complain. If it’s unfair use, I have the right to request the removal.
Did he explain this somehow? I mean why specifically graphics? What about other non-source-code files? If it’s only graphics, where does such distinction come from? What if a logo is just a part of an image - does this make the entire image non-reusable or only the logo needs to be removed?
I understand that taking out logos and visual elements can sound even less respectful from the original dev, but it’s important to understand that IP is the only way to make a living of graphic design. Once again, it is not about tearing miRack down, a simple autorisation from teh author can end up to a solution profitable on every side. user is happy to have his befaco logo, befaco is happy to have advertising, and you are happy to have befaco on your side, you just need the authorisation of a copyrighted logo, name, or graphic element
@pronvit Regarding contacting the developers beforehand, you have to consider that most of us know each other for almost two years and we are active and easy to reach in the community or in the Facebook group. If you are not active in any of these communities I don’t expect you to know it.
As a cautionary tale, every time that the name of an manufacturer is used, you should be careful of getting the permission. The fact that Befaco and others granted the permit to the VCV company, and the sources are public, does not imply that your project is granted permit by default. I hope you get all responses soon.
@pyer I replied to you in the email, I think I understand the situation with Geodesics now.
The fact that Befaco and others granted the permit to the VCV company, and the sources are public, does not imply that your project is granted permit by default.
I totally understand this. All this situation (with the hardware-based modules) is caused only by the absence of any information about such permits e.g. from Befaco in the repository. If it were stated that the name/graphics/layout/whatever can not be used, I would never touch them. If it’s not stated, how should I know? Isn’t it a responsibility of a repo author to include licenses for all the third-party content?
It suddenly occurs to me that Synthkit modules are included and I made those panel designs for Jerry Sievert and nobody asked me about reusing them, so yeah, @pronvit, it’s probably more complicated than you were assuming.
I want to emphasise again, that I was relying on the license information in the repositories. If it said graphics can not be used, I would open Figma and redo the graphics. If it said layouts can not be used, I would also change the layouts. It’s much easier for me to do this than to put the app in danger by not following any obvious license terms.
So, if for some reason I’m using someones intellectual property illegally (as mentioned above, most likely because such restrictions were not made public), I’m ready to do whatever required to fix this as soon as possible. If a permission can not be granted, I need to know what exactly is copyrighted and needs to be replaced by my own work.
Oops, the forum says I’ve reached the maximum number of replies for new users per day o_O. I guess I won’t be able to reply for a while. Please contact me via email support@mifki.com if you want a quick response.
Thank you for coming out and debating the issue openly and honestly Vitaly, with good intentions and forthrightness. I’m sure this will all get sorted and there’s good lessons to be learned all around, with regard to licenses, IP, graphics, copyright, do’s and dont’s, etc. etc. It’s clear that no one is out to hurt any one’s feelings, so this should all be possible to resolve in good faith and spirits. BTW - MiRack was mentioned in the latest Sonictalk
if you give instructions about a format of a static lib I can give you a static build + resources of NYSTHI that you can include in your distribution (of course recompiling a new miRack version)
Thank you for your hard work and creating the ipad version.
touch screens have always been the perfect future vehicle for vcv rack.
keep the updates coming please , especially in regards to the mutable instruments parasites and alt firm ware options; which have been provided with a right click on some of the mutable instruments module.
I’d love to see more easter eggs and parasites firm ware for the modules.
Myself, what controversy? Seems all to serious and a bit first world problems, if you ask me. i don’t understand the problem with the ipad port if vcv rack developers are not porting onto ios - open source is open source. or am i wrong? And just how did module faceplates become trademarked, non open source or cause problems - i don’t get it. Maybe it all started with rolands BS or something.
Now reading this whole thread, I’m confused!! that now vcv rack is what, not open source?
Ok, i obviously don’t understand open source at all. Is it all about 'recognition for the programmer ?
I’m from a different world (I’m a community worker, and in political activism) and not in the open source scene.
in my ideal world, everyone would share and share alike. But that’s not everyone’s ideal world, some people take ownership and possession very seriously. I can’t say that’s wrong. After all, most of the animal kingdom operates that way. And boundaries create a system of order that most people seem willing to live with. But particularly with the arts, and people trying to make a living at them; some boundaries around ownership might make the difference between being able to survive working as an artist or not.
EDIT: Related to this particular topic, I am only speaking to the artwork that may appear in otherwise (one form or another of) open-source software.
And before I get too self-righteous, I should note that I had planned to grab some frames from random YouTube videos for the purpose of adding video to VCV tracks. I was going to heavily manipulate them, so it would probably constitute fair use, but now, God is telling me I’d better ask permission.
my context radar must be way off then - i was under the assumption that the vcv rack project was a non commercial project, for the purposes of making and sharing music without having to buy into the mega software plattforms. Any modules sold along the way would be for development, beer money and/or money for buying synths.
btw: i have purchased the majority of paid modules.
