Open source being used commercially

Any music gear discussions that don't fit into one of the other forums.

Moderators: luketeaford, Joe., lisa, Kent

p_shoulder
Common Wiggler
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:33 am

Re: Open source being used commercially

Post by p_shoulder » Fri Jan 10, 2020 3:11 pm

2disbetter wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:58 am
The world is unfair.
The world is unfair.

If the choice is present, all other things being equal, I personally chose not to give money to people, companies, governmental entities, etc., that are assholes.

I consider this a dick move from Behringer, though not exactly a surprising one from the company that got started ripping off Mackie and Aphex and others.

This is a personal opinion and not exactly the normal run of things. It is pretty clear most people vote for their consumerism to be as cheap as possible, no matter what unethical asshole behavior helped contribute to this cheapness.

They are entitled to their opinion and I am entitled to mine. :mad:

User avatar
UltraViolet
Veteran Wiggler
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 7:10 pm
Location: Edinburg, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Open source being used commercially

Post by UltraViolet » Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:53 pm

widdly wrote:
Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:46 pm
You other comments about visual studio and linux dev tools make me think you do not have a very broad experience in software engineering.
Actually I've been writing software (and lots of it) for everything from tiny embedded systems to large business applications for the past 40 years. The last job I had was working with both Linux C++ code in the server and Visual Studio for the client side. It is night and day between the two. Development in Linux is like where we were in Windows 30 years ago (been there, done that).
widdly wrote:
Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:46 pm
The idea that companies using or creating open source software cannot compete or survive is demonstrably not true. Companies like Google, Amazon, Oracle, Ericsson etc.etc
Comparing the giants to small synth companies is definitely apples and oranges. Those companies have vast resources and also have a great deal of closed source software (that funded those vast resources). I am not down on open source by any means. It is a noble cause and many people have benefited from it. I just hope that anyone starting a small software business does not accidentally get in legal tangles with the Free Software Foundation.

With the permissive open source licenses, open and closed source can coexist together. This will happen with Sea of Wonder. The DSP code and the GUI will be open source while the DSG core and new major features will be closed source. Sometime down the road all the code for the free version (including a version of the DSG core) will be open source. Farther on as new features age, they will be included in the free version and become open source as well. Also I am pledged to release all the code for any product at whatever point in the future that I stop supporting it, so eventually it will all be open source. Couldn't do this with GNU, but it works with the permissive open source licenses.

User avatar
IR
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 1580
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:40 am

Re: Open source being used commercially

Post by IR » Sat Jan 18, 2020 1:23 pm

I don't know about the legality of circuits, but what they are doing with trade dress seems to be illegal.

If I didn't know about these synths, I would assume the Wasp, Cat, Pro One and Odyssey are all done under license. They not only copied the fonts and everything, but the model names as well.

Unless I'm wrong and they actually have bought the rights.

Bitnik
Learning to Wiggle
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2020 11:41 am

Re: Open source being used commercially

Post by Bitnik » Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:50 pm

Software engineer, so I can't say anything much specific to hardware (but I won't let that stop me.) In software it's generally recognised that sharing is a good idea. Software open source almost invariably incorporates a licence for commercial use, but often (eg: GPL) involves a requirement that anybody who benefits from the original work must also publish the source, under the same licence (or a compatible licence). For full disclosure, I tend to favour BSD licencing, mainly because I don't think it's a bad thing if somebody does something cool with my stuff but never tells the world about it.

Hardware can be patented, which gives the inventor control over the reproduction of the hardware for a few years, in return for publication of the invention. If your patent application fails, or you fail to pursue it successfully, your act of publication may alert people who might otherwise have paid for exclusive rights to the invention..

Names can be trademarked, which is why Apple Corp (a holder of music copyright) and Apple Inc (a computer hardware company that started publishing music) had that long-running legal dispute. Both companies recognised that there could only be one Apple in the music business.

I understand that PCB layouts may be subject to copyright, but not schematics. This makes sense because a schematic is just a basic idea about how a bit of electronics could work. For the purpose of audio frequency electronics and through-hole soldering, though, a veroboard circuit can be constructed by any old bozo from the schematic, and it will work.

In short, many analogue modules are intrinsically public. You can't stop other people reading what you published and copying it. This is a good thing.

User avatar
mskala
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:33 am
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Open source being used commercially

Post by mskala » Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:06 am

Bitnik wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:50 pm
I understand that PCB layouts may be subject to copyright, but not schematics.
Schematics are absolutely subject to copyright. They're just drawings, and drawings are subject to copyright. That means you can't just stick one in the photocopier and sell copies of it. But the circuit expressed by the schematic is another story. Draw a new schematic of the same circuit - or build the actual piece of electronic equipment described by the schematic - and that's yours, unless something else (such as a patent) interferes.

Bitnik
Learning to Wiggle
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2020 11:41 am

Re: Open source being used commercially

Post by Bitnik » Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:09 am

Another point to consider is that modular designs of the classic period are all long out of patent. Since the patent mechanism is specifically intended to encourage engineers to bring their invention into the public domain by granting them a limited term monopoly to its exploitation, once the patent expires the invention belongs to all of us (which is a very good thing.)

I don't see why anyone should have qualms about copying classic ideas. Nobody thinks twice about using that classic invention, Mr Dunlop's pneumatic tyre. Same goes for synth modules.

Divinital

Re: Open source being used commercially

Post by Divinital » Mon Jan 20, 2020 7:21 am

Bitnik wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:09 am
Nobody thinks twice about using that classic invention, Mr Dunlop's pneumatic tyre. Same goes for synth modules.
Says you.

Bitnik
Learning to Wiggle
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2020 11:41 am

Re: Open source being used commercially

Post by Bitnik » Mon Jan 20, 2020 7:46 am

If this were aviation, would we all be discussing whether it's okay to use a flight-proven aileron design or to build and sell a replica of a classic plane? The stakes are lower here, but the inventions are here to help us, not to sit around unused because the original equipment is obsolete and long out of production.

User avatar
brokensolderingiron
Common Wiggler
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 6:52 pm

Re: Open source being used commercially

Post by brokensolderingiron » Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:03 pm

mskala wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:06 am
Bitnik wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:50 pm
I understand that PCB layouts may be subject to copyright, but not schematics.
Schematics are absolutely subject to copyright. They're just drawings, and drawings are subject to copyright. That means you can't just stick one in the photocopier and sell copies of it. But the circuit expressed by the schematic is another story. Draw a new schematic of the same circuit - or build the actual piece of electronic equipment described by the schematic - and that's yours, unless something else (such as a patent) interferes.
Geeee!! Just try your ideas in a court and see how far you get, why not try to find such a case and see how that went? E.g take a op amp, a resistor, a cap symbol, draw them together with lines and dots in all the electrically functionally ways you possibly can, now go to court and sue everybody else by claiming copyright of your "fantastic artsyfartsy" then feel the pain of being slammed hard to the ground by the court.

Not only that your merging patent laws with copyright laws guess what, they dont apply at the same time for the same thing.Just ask a court.

Riddle: 2 anonymous individual persons unknown to each other draws using same CAD program with same standard library symbols the same
schematic drawing consisting of a resistor, cap and op amp a e.g integrating function, both then files for copyright claims per your standard,
who owns the copyright? :party:

intropod_
Learning to Wiggle
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:28 pm

Re: Open source being used commercially

Post by intropod_ » Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:39 am

brokensolderingiron wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:03 pm


Geeee!! Just try your ideas in a court and see how far you get, why not try to find such a case and see how that went? E.g take a op amp, a resistor, a cap symbol, draw them together with lines and dots in all the electrically functionally ways you possibly can, now go to court and sue everybody else by claiming copyright of your "fantastic artsyfartsy" then feel the pain of being slammed hard to the ground by the court.

Not only that your merging patent laws with copyright laws guess what, they dont apply at the same time for the same thing.Just ask a court.

Riddle: 2 anonymous individual persons unknown to each other draws using same CAD program with same standard library symbols the same
schematic drawing consisting of a resistor, cap and op amp a e.g integrating function, both then files for copyright claims per your standard,
who owns the copyright? :party:
I think you completely misinterpreted the previous post. Your riddle isn't a riddle. Each would have copyright claim to their own original work. Same as if two people draw pictures of the same green leafy tree.

That doesn't stop someone else from drawing their own tree, or stop them from drawing their own schematic diagram with all of the same components connected in exactly the same way.

User avatar
IR
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 1580
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:40 am

Re: Open source being used commercially

Post by IR » Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:43 am

btw, weren't some of the mods they added to the MS-101 common mods that get made to the SH-101?

User avatar
mskala
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:33 am
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Open source being used commercially

Post by mskala » Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:51 am

intropod_ wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:39 am
brokensolderingiron wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:03 pm
Geeee!! Just try your ideas in a court and see how far you get, why not try to find such a case and see how that went? E.g take a op amp, a resistor, a cap symbol, draw them together with lines and dots in all the electrically functionally ways you possibly can, now go to court and sue everybody else by claiming copyright of your "fantastic artsyfartsy" then feel the pain of being slammed hard to the ground by the court.
I think you completely misinterpreted the previous post. Your riddle isn't a riddle. Each would have copyright claim to their own original work. Same as if two people draw pictures of the same green leafy tree.
Yes, but it's a reasonable misinterpretation if brokensolderingiron read only the first sentence of what I wrote. My main point developed in the second and later sentences of my comment was the same as theirs: although schematics are subject to copyright, owning copyright to a schematic doesn't actually allow someone to claim very much intellectual property because it's easy to draw a new schematic and have a new copyright on the new drawing of the same circuit. The copyright only applies to the drawing, not the circuit. Map and territory.

The question of two drawings being exactly identical is something that often trips up people with a computing background, because copyright doesn't work like that. Two independently-created artifacts can have separate copyright status because they came from different places even if they are in the computing sense bit-for-bit identical. I wrote a Web log entry some years ago about that, which has since been widely cited and may be of interest: What Colour are your bits?

User avatar
brokensolderingiron
Common Wiggler
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 6:52 pm

Re: Open source being used commercially

Post by brokensolderingiron » Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:59 am

intropod_ wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:39 am
I think you completely misinterpreted the previous post. Your riddle isn't a riddle. Each would have copyright claim to their own original work. Same as if two people draw pictures of the same green leafy tree.

That doesn't stop someone else from drawing their own tree, or stop them from drawing their own schematic diagram with all of the same components connected in exactly the same way.
Not at all, all im saying take your ideas and mskalas as stated about copyright and try them in a court, thats all. You simply dont read what i said instead continues mskalas arguing "schematics is draw by pen therefore copyrighted". In your mind and mskalas a straight line and a dot from CAD program is copyrighted, well then good luck in court, you will get thrown out just by industrial standard and general engineering practices alone. :despair:
mskala wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:51 am
intropod_ wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:39 am
Yes, but it's a reasonable misinterpretation if brokensolderingiron read only the first sentence of what I wrote. My main point developed in the second and later sentences of my comment was the same as theirs: although schematics are subject to copyright, owning copyright to a schematic doesn't actually allow someone to claim very much intellectual property because it's easy to draw a new schematic and have a new copyright on the new drawing of the same circuit. The copyright only applies to the drawing, not the circuit. Map and territory.

The question of two drawings being exactly identical is something that often trips up people with a computing background, because copyright doesn't work like that. Two independently-created artifacts can have separate copyright status because they came from different places even if they are in the computing sense bit-for-bit identical. I wrote a Web log entry some years ago about that, which has since been widely cited and may be of interest: What Colour are your bits?
Not at all, i read all what you claimed, and your first sentence gives all away by the imaginary support of next sentences gobble gook ideas.
did my analyzes from a law/court point which you dont do. Your reasoning contains numerous fallacies from logic and court/law perspective,
copyright laws is first by country you dont even realize that. The other fallacy you make is to assume im from a computing background
but from law, something you obviously not have done. Besides deliberately avoiding what i said in my examples of your faulty reasoning
nor do you provide a prior court case to refer your reasoning to, nor do you provide copyright markers from existing schematics which in
itself would have the same legal standing as Chinese slabbing fake CE markings on everything they do today.

So again good luck in court with your two identical schematics copyrights, "high court" decisions for whatever your country calls them, sets precedence for the next court decision in similar cases , laws are dynamic in courts. There is no way in hell a court is going to buy your:
This-is-2-identical CAD-schematics-of-the-same-electrical-circuit-therefore-i-mksala-have-the-copyrights-to-one-of-the-identical-schematics-therefore-i-can-legally-demand-the-other-copyright-holder-to-pay-me-a-fee-i-decide-the-number-of. Thats how off road your copyright ideas are.

Do your self a service, show us ONE court case in which your reasoning of 2 identical schematics have been applied and court have said yes this is a legal case you may proceed to fee everybody on the internet.

Peoples argumentation also lacks the core of the chest "whom" is the intended target ( after all copyright is just about law) of this schematic copyright gobblegook? Well it turns out its always small scale boutiqe people who want to apply their wonky ideas and newer any larger established manufacturer who really would care about such thing in the first place...I wonder why?
Last edited by brokensolderingiron on Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
mskala
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:33 am
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Open source being used commercially

Post by mskala » Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:44 am

brokensolderingiron wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:59 am
There is no way in hell a court is going to buy your: This-is-2-identical CAD-schematics-of-the-same-electrical-circuit-therefore-i-mksala-have-the-copyrights-to-one-of-the-identical-schematics-therefore-i-can-legally-demand-the-other-copyright-holder-to-pay-me-a-fee-i-decide-the-number-of.
That is exactly the opposite of what I said.

User avatar
brokensolderingiron
Common Wiggler
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 6:52 pm

Re: Open source being used commercially

Post by brokensolderingiron » Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:46 am

mskala wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:44 am
That is exactly the opposite of what I said.
Nope, thats what you present it as see below, then your argumentation of copyright is linked to selling copies, then tangles up the whole thing even more by injecting patents into the thing.Find me the court case who says schematics stands on the same ground as drawings while at it inject the word paintings as well, why not rune stones or other arts in which schematics is not. Schematics is again "industrial engineering practice" you cant copyright or patent obvious practices, patent laws btw CLEARLY dictates this along with prior art. Perhaps you want to patent or copyright walking just because it "looks" funny?
Bitnik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:50 pm
I understand that PCB layouts may be subject to copyright, but not schematics.
Schematics are absolutely subject to copyright. They're just drawings, and drawings are subject to copyright. That means you can't just stick one in the photocopier and sell copies of it. But the circuit expressed by the schematic is another story. Draw a new schematic of the same circuit - or build the actual piece of electronic equipment described by the schematic - and that's yours, unless something else (such as a patent) interferes.
Last edited by brokensolderingiron on Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mskala
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:33 am
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Open source being used commercially

Post by mskala » Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:09 am

Ain't Muffwiggler great? We don't even have to pay to be here!

Anyway, here's a video from EEVBlog about the graphic design work that goes into drawing a schematic. I don't agree with everything Dave recommends, but that's a relevant point too: different people will draw the same circuit in different ways, and it's hard not to call some of the decisions involved artistic decisions.



One of my own (a mechanical drawing rather than a schematic) here: https://video.northcoastsynthesis.com/? ... d-20181014

User avatar
brokensolderingiron
Common Wiggler
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 6:52 pm

Re: Open source being used commercially

Post by brokensolderingiron » Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:29 am

I dont think the issue is the fact people do draw schematics differently, so your "schematics copyright" automatically goes away by using common
sense and engineering practice. But with CAD systems people using same standard library symbols schematics do tend to look the same but that
doe not increase rights to copyright in any way. Schematics shall and remain outside courts. Dave is also a human, makes mistakes and argues up the wall now and then.

Besides im happy being able to get a schematic for whatever obsolete commodity product i might have bought, free or paid i dont give a crap.

User avatar
SynthBaron
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 2:43 am

Re: Open source being used commercially

Post by SynthBaron » Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:43 pm

There seems to be a big emotional hypocritical rift between a creator's outwardly projected altruism and their passive-aggressive sulking about not getting paid for it by an entity that profits off it.

User avatar
Flounderguts
Veteran Wiggler
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 5:56 pm
Location: SLC

Re: Open source being used commercially

Post by Flounderguts » Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:04 pm

SynthBaron wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:43 pm
There seems to be a big emotional hypocritical rift between a creator's outwardly projected altruism and their passive-aggressive sulking about not getting paid for it by an entity that profits off it.
:sb: :omg:
----------------------

Flounderguts

Divinital

Re: Open source being used commercially

Post by Divinital » Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:40 pm

Didn't he simply ask to be credited?

I believe the "emotional rift" comes from the hope that open source material will be used as a foundational bricks to build upon rather than the entire structure, as is tradition with Almight-B.

The dude spent a bunch of his own time laying out a few steps in a blueprint while Behringer came and squatted in it as though it were the finished house. Can't kick em out. Nothing to do besides be annoyed, which is exactly the case, unsurprisingly.

User avatar
SynthBaron
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 2:43 am

Re: Open source being used commercially

Post by SynthBaron » Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:52 pm

Different mindset, I guess. I would just be happy someone else found it useful.

User avatar
Flounderguts
Veteran Wiggler
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 5:56 pm
Location: SLC

Re: Open source being used commercially

Post by Flounderguts » Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:30 pm

It happens. I had a company and IP basically stolen from me when I couldn't afford to pursue it. Granted, the dude who stole it sunk himself into it and lost his house and wife, but at least I can buy one of the things I invented on Amazon!

Gotta let go of stuff, and the companies with money *always* take advantage of the little guys. Haven't you ever seen Shark Tank?
----------------------

Flounderguts

User avatar
UltraViolet
Veteran Wiggler
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 7:10 pm
Location: Edinburg, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Open source being used commercially

Post by UltraViolet » Wed Jan 22, 2020 6:51 pm

SynthBaron wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:52 pm
Different mindset, I guess. I would just be happy someone else found it useful.
I think that different mindset says it well. I think that if you use someone else's work as a building block then you should give them credit somewhere.
Along the lines of what you said above, if you give a gift only in order to receive thanks/credit/gratitude/etc. in exchange then it isn't a true gift. Some people have released their software as a true gift and expect nothing in return. Others place conditions on that gift. Asking for credit in return is quite reasonable and should be given even if not asked. Demanding a gift (software source code) in exchange for using software source code makes it not really a gift. That is why I don't consider GPL to be truly "free" or altruistic. Doesn't make it a bad thing, just not genuine altruism. Also it is subject to the mindset from which you view it.

Bitnik
Learning to Wiggle
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2020 11:41 am

Re: Open source being used commercially

Post by Bitnik » Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:22 am

Free and open source software comes in two basic flavours. The most common flavour, thanks to Richard Stallman's highly successful GNU project, is a kind of viral licence (don't bug me about the spelling, I'm British) which places an obligation on someone who publishes derived software to relicense it under the same or compatible conditions, which means the source code must be made available on request. This ensures that all derived software must continue to benefit the public.

A less restrictive licence is typified by the BSD licence, though there are several variants. The main distinction here is that the software can be reused as long as it's credited, but there is no obligation to publish the source of derived software. Perhaps one of the most famous examples of this reuse is in Microsoft's wholesale reuse of the network stack from the BSD operating system in early adaptations of Windows to the internet (it's actually a lot more complicated than that, but essentially true.) You used to be able to look for strings in the binaries and you'd see the copyright statements.

I admire the work Stallman has done and I think he went a long way towards creating the modern free and open source software movement. For the crappy software I write, though, I prefer the more radically free BSD-like licences. I'd be, gawsh, awed and amazed if some of the crud I give away for free ever provided the basis for something wonderful. Meanwhile anybody who wants to use it for any purpose (including attempts to persuade me to take up a more suitable occupation) is welcome.

For the same reason I tend to favour the use of radically free software. Clang rather than gcc, libc rather than glibc, ksh rather than bash, tmux rather than screen (well, for my purposes tmux is better anyway) and so on. If some of their code ends up in my work, I'll credit it, but if I reused GPL code it would force me to carry restrictions on into my own work. I'd rather not do that.

Post Reply

Return to “General Gear”