JUCE 6
-
@d-healey yea I believe we’ve talked about that before. When I’m at a spot I’ll message you about that process as my whole end goal is to just run the vst3 through a web app or the elk hardware to users for free and have them purchase expansion sample packs. Would the open source method cover this?
I’m assuming we’re still a ways away from this happening..though the headless Linux build would be a good starting point if we could get that compiling correctly in the future
Thanks Dave
Ps I talked with the same guy at web audio modules a few months ago and was interested in the hise vst to web Project. I haven’t heard back but was curious if this was a thing that could be done..
-
Would the open source method cover this?
If you are just running the binary on your server then it's not free software. It's only free software if you are distributing binaries to users and you are also providing them access to the source files.
I haven't pursued the headless build any further. Although I know some people are trying to get it working so we may see progress with it given time.
-
@d-healey cool, thanks
-
You need to provide everything that is required to build the project, including the samples.
The code is the thing licensed under GPL and written using open source original code and guide-lines and thus the code will be redistributed, never the samples. They are not made using the source code provided by the GPL software original.
You could of course provide dummy files for all sounds that use the same filenames and thereby make it entirely usable for someone looking to base their instruments on yours.
Here is a little bit from:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhatCaseIsOutputGPLKeep in mind that some programs, particularly video games, can have artwork/audio that is licensed separately from the underlying GPLed game. In such cases, the license on the artwork/audio would dictate the terms under which video/streaming may occur.
So the artworks and thus the sounds in our cases can be distributed in other license types, but the work derived from the HISE script and all C++ / JUCE libraries would be bound by their GPL or commercial licenses.
It must surely be an ability of a recording artist to protect his/her works in this day in age. Even for "royalty free" samples.
-
-
never the samples. They are not made using the source code provided by the GPL software original.
I agree, but Christoph's license requires you to release the samples under the GPL too.
Okay, but if the license of those samples has already been set by another license, that part license is overridden by the artwork´s own licensing. Or perhaps that would make them unusable with HISE?
-
@andioak I think the latter but I'm not sure
-
I agree, but Christoph's license requires you to release the samples under the GPL too.
No mention of that in the License pages on github at all. Only that you release your software under the same license or any later version than v3.
https://github.com/christophhart/HISE/blob/scriptnode/license.txt
Or perhaps it´s JUCE that pose those restrictions?
-
@andioak I've said this before but I don't see how such a requirement is justifiable. The GNU GPL requires the release of source code alongside binaries, samples aren't binaries and don't have source code. Also by releasing samples under the GNU GPL you also require derivative works (aka compositions) by end users to be released under the same license, and presumably they'd have to release their non-existent source code too? I think a CC license is more appropriate for assets.
-
... by releasing samples under the GNU GPL you also require derivative works (aka compositions) by end users to be released under the same license, and presumably they'd have to release their non-existent source code too?
Indeed the GPL is not inclusive of circumstances, but want´s it all to be it´s own little product of everything, as do CC licenses.
I think a CC license is more appropriate for assets.
Yes, I agree. Although they seem to have an issue coexisting in one product:
https://www.linux.com/news/trouble-artwork-and-free-software-licenses/Quote from that article:
Applying the GPL to non-software works
If none of the CC licenses allow a work to be combined with GPLed software, one common alternative is to license the artwork itself under the GPL. The FSF suggests this possibility, but it also cautions that what constitutes the “source code” of the licensed work must be clear.
So very much up to the developer him/herself to write out what "constitutes" the program. That document is quite old now, however, and in any case just a post on the web.
Samples delivered as one component in a sampled instrument is one option, like a multi-part product containing a player and the loaded samples. Those are then licensed under a CC or other type of license. In sample making you would not find much use of GPL, no, as you say, because of the implications for the end user who makes the music. Are you using more than one license for assets then? Or you just think that would be preferable? (as do I)
-
@andioak I use a CC+ license, I asked the CC team for some advice before I added the + clauses. There is actually a CC sampling license but it's deprecated now and hasn't been replaced with anything.
-
@d-healey Okay, cool, but how does that work, do you include that in the samples folder or do you serve the samples folder or zip as a separate thing? I want to do the same with the code but leave the art-work to the authors there.
-
@andioak I just provide download links through my webstore. The installer for the sample library includes the license and it's also available on my website and in my github repository.
