I’ve suggested it as a module to a few devs, a couple sounded interested but no one has made one yet to my knowledge. Look forward to having a play with it.
I read somewhere (can’t find it now) that Rob Hordijk didn’t want his module in software, there was also something with one of the modules of MSM that had to be removed when the source code became open source.
This one had to go.
I read something he wrote, or heard him in a video (not sure which) something similar. But what I took from that was he preferred the results of hardware because it provided more subtle variation. I didn’t interpret the statement as meaning he would be upset if it was implemented in software. But I could be wrong.
A number of people have gotten licenses to market hardware based on his design. I suppose a VCV module would require a license agreement as well, whether free or premium. But I would be shocked if he would be upset by a VCV patch that emulates a benjolin.
2 Likes
I think a patch would be OK, but not a module.
Hi! My first post 
I am also curious for your patch!
I have made an emulation as well and will try to post it also these days. I hope to learn from your version!
I also made an emulation patch of the Wing Pinger by Meng Qi. Will post this as well. I don’t know if it resembles the real hardware, but the result is quite musical
2 Likes
(RANT-mode-on) Not to you, just a general comment…
I’m sorry but if that had to be removed that’s at the level of stupid of YouTube copyright claims and takedowns. It had no Hordijk or Benjolin naming on it, looks nothing like the countless clones of Benjolins, which can be sold without problems and the Benjolin is an open, DIY, educational design anyway. It fully complies with the VCV Plugin Ethics Guidelines. So if that’s true it’s pretty ridiculous.
(RANT-off)
Why? (see above)
Quote:
VCV Plugin Ethics Guidelines ¶
- You may not clone the brand name, model name, logo, panel design, or layout of components (knobs, ports, switches, etc) of an existing hardware or software product without permission from its owner, regardless of whether these are covered under trademark/copyright law.
It is recommended to follow these guidelines for all plugins, but you are not legally obligated to do so. However, it is a requirement for:
- distributing your plugin on the VCV Library.
← End-quote
If it doesn’t mention Rob Hordijk, or Benjolin, does not have it’s logo, does not have the same panel design or component layout, a developer should be able to make as many “Benjolin” or other modules as they like. Yes?
Why? (see above)
(RANT-on) I’m getting a bit tired of the (mostly unfounded) license and copyright paranoia in the community. It’s stiffling, spreads a bad mood and is just plain annoying. Just abide by the guidelines and get on with making fun stuff. If we’re to become a bunch of half-assed lawyers hurling hear-say at each other, the fun will really go out the window, and has sometimes. (RANT-off)
1 Like
1 Like
Okay, so it was the The TwinPeak Filter, not the Benjolin. Lots of clones of this being sold.
Quoting:
I made my plugin closed source a while ago because Rob Hordijk only allowed me to release the TVCF (TwinPeak filter clone) when closed source.
I highly doubt that Rob Hordijk has the power to patent or protect the “principle of two inverse-parallel low pass filters” - it smells like the dubious and illegal practice of software or algorithm patents. But I can’t be sure of course and I’m not going to bother looking.
Michael Struggl obviously reached out to Rob who said he couldn’t implement the design in Open Source software (why?) and he complied. I highly doubt he has any legal bearing to do that but I can’t be sure and I’m not a lawyer. I don’t see why the module should not be fine as long as it adheres to the above mentioned VCV ethical guidelines.
My take: Don’t ask and make sure it doesn’t look like an original and don’t mention where the inspiration comes from.
I just casually looked and Moog has three patents. The first two reads like patenting a general VCO and VCF. If people took crap like that seriously there would be no music industry, no synths or modulars and no VCV Rack. The definition of stiffling. Sigh…
3 Likes
I completely agree that there is nothing illegal or immoral about making a software version/copy/tribute of a non-patented piece of hardware. And regardless of what you think about patenting a circuit I would expect very few synth modules are patented.
And I think we all agree that the closer your panel design is to the original the sleazier it is, with an exact replica of the graphic being on one extreme, and identical collection of controls with identical names being at best unoriginal…
Perhaps we disagree on details of open source licenses. I know myself I have mentioned here that people shouldn’t distribute modified versions of other people’s modules in cases that clearly violate the license terms. Admittedly these licenses are not super easy to understand, i.e. they make you think like a lawyer. But there are genuinely developers here who don’t want someone to port their 1.x modules to 2.x and redistribute them.
I wasn’t aware that Rob Hordijk had said that. I wrote it purely out of an interest to get my hands on the module as it seems like it’s a module with lots of creative uses. No fuss intended.
Also a reminder can we please keep this thread civil.
1 Like
I know, which boggles my mind since that’s exactly one of the big reasons for having Open Source in the first place - so the users or developers can pick up the pieces and move on.
I suspect there are some developers like me. Went open source because it seemed to be the thing to do without really considering all the ramifications. And I kind of doubt that users care too much about this either. Seems like many of the most popular plugins are closed source. (Vult, Nysthi, VCV host, VCV as a VST).
I know also some devs weren’t really excited by giving away their work for free to support the paid VCV pro.
I chose to release as open source when I began developing for VCV in 2019 based on Andrew’s recommendation, and, it seemed to be the thing to do in an open source project. If I had to make that choice today, I’m not sure what I would decide, but I would sure look into the ramifications of my choice much deeper than I did in 2019.
There are probably as many reasons for releasing as open or closed source, free or paid, as there are developers here.
I’m also a proponent of civility and kindness. But, that is just me.
I’m a proponent for ethical “guidelines” and decisions rather than legality decisions.
But, that’s just me. No one can speak for me except me.
2 Likes
Maybe Rob doesn’t mind at all, and was it something/somebody else entirely. 
I just read an old post from Rob the other day, but I can’t seem to find it, and can’t remember the exact words. Someone said something about him being generous with his release of the Benjolin design to the world. From what I remember, he responded about wanting to encourage people building electronic instruments, but did not want other people making money off of his design, and hoped others in the community would help keep people in line as far as that goes.
I believe the Benjolin is the only design he made public. All the other synth stuff that he has designed and sells has remained proprietary.
This is all stuff I read about within the past few days. I hadn’t even heard of Rob or the Benjolin until about a week ago - so I am not speaking with any deep understanding or sense of history. But I am enjoying the learning process.
2 Likes
in my little time I wrote the “BOH!ngler” that in my original idea was an extended RUNGLER
with 256 bits shift register, divided in 16 lines
creating 16 voltages (UNI or BIPO), with XOR mode and clock and DSR clock
bitshifting from 1 to 16
when bitshifting by 16 is effectively 16 stage ASR
4 Likes
I found the quote I was thinking of, but he was comparing digital vs analog. Digital could still be hardware, so I suppose this does not directly apply to hardware vs software.
You can find the quote at electro-music.com :: View topic - Benjolin schematics, bottom of 3rd post
Sorry Lars I didn’t mean to reply to you 
I made my plugin closed source a while ago because Rob Hordijk only allowed me to release the TVCF (TwinPeak filter clone) when closed source.
This was what I read some time ago and it had to do with the Twinpeak filter clone made by MSM. I think I translated that to Rob doesn’t like open source clones of his work.