Open catronomix opened 5 years ago
bsp2
commented
5 years ago Andrew (the VCV developer) kindly asked me not to do that (and I agreed).
From what I've been told, v1 will remain an open source standalone app, and the official VST version (v2 ?) is going to be a closed source, commercial product.
catronomix
commented
5 years ago So when all modules will be made for V1, they won't be portable to veeseevst, while v2 is still lightyears away... Sounds like a commercial move on Andrew's part that goes against what I see as the essence of open source. Creating a free product, get a community going and get famous with the help of all the other developers that believe in it, then make it closed and commercial. Where have I seen this before -_-
Eurikon
commented
5 years ago Sorry but you are heavily over-reacting, instead maybe you could support the platform and all the hard work by Andrew and all the devs, through buying the official VST when it comes out. to keep all of this going as it is. And as a creator of his own work Andrew is in tittle to do with it what ever he wants. So are you, if you would create anything.
What BSP did was and is applaudable and most of us are greatfull for his efforts. But that too has its limits and end of lifecycle.
Just a thought! Now go and patch some cool music with all of this greatness :D
So when all modules will be made for V1, they won't be portable to veeseevst, while v2 is still lightyears away... Sounds like a commercial move on Andrew's part that goes against what I see as the essence of open source. Creating a free product, get a community going and get famous with the help of all the other developers that believe in it, then make it closed and commercial. Where have I seen this before -_-
catronomix
commented
5 years ago I do create, now I'm porting for v1, and once that is complete I will update for v1 and leave 0.6 behind. Maintaining 2 concurrent versions is not optimal, but without veeseevst going to v1, its the only way to use my modules in 4 instances of rack without performance becoming an issue, at least until v2 comes out, at which point I will probably buy the vst version, just like I paid for the vst host module. And I would understand that when v2 is out, it would be a sucker move to bring out a free fork because that would impact sales. However, in between there will be no alternative to run v1 patches as a vst, so I still dont get why he asked not to port it...
emilm
commented
4 years ago If the VST is using the VCV Rack which is under GPLv3+ then doesn't he have to disclose the source? :)
CommanderAsdasd
commented
4 years ago It could be a much better if he compete in a product quality rather than pushing open-source developers to abandon their project due to his business needs. In a result we'll get not a free open source eurorack emulator, but another one Reaktor. Karmic wheel gets another turn.
bsp2
commented
4 years ago Just for the record: Nobody drove me away from this project.
My original intention was to (slightly) modify / extend VCV Rack, post the contribution and be done with it.
As it turned out, this plugin version required a lot of modifications, not only to the Rack (v0.6x) core itself but also to the (3rd party) modules, rendering the plugin incompatible with the mainline Rack source tree and 3rd party module repos.
I never had any plans to update this fork forever (as mentioned in one of my early KVR posts).
It is what it is. Enjoy, make some music, and support VCV Rack, especially if you want the current Rack version in VST format.
Are there plans to port the rack v1. update to veeseevst ?