Code Use Restrictions | Synth Book Questions | Forum

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Code Use Restrictions
Avatar
New Member
Members
November 26, 2020 - 7:20 pm
Member Since: November 26, 2020
Forum Posts: 1
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Not sure this is the right place for this question, but there doesn't seem to be a right place.

You have said that fxobjects.h and .cpp are freely usable.  Many of the plugins are Copyright by Tritone which is clear.  Some code is marked for academic use only which is also clear.  Many other code files have no restrictions noted in them.  Are these code files with no restrictions noted freely usable as well?

Avatar
Admin
November 27, 2020 - 11:17 am
Member Since: January 29, 2017
Forum Posts: 689
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

You can use all of the fxobjects stuff as you like - there are no restrictions. However, if you want to redistribute the C++ files, you need to keep the copyright intact. That's all. Most people have no reason to redistribute it but that is part of the ASPiK license as well (the fundamental restriction is that you can't re-package it as your "own" plugin framework). 

Will 

Avatar
Member
Members
June 21, 2021 - 8:10 pm
Member Since: June 16, 2021
Forum Posts: 43
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

W Pirkle said
...Most people have no reason to redistribute it but that is part of the ASPiK license as well (the fundamental restriction is that you can't re-package it as your "own" plugin framework). 

Will   

Apologies for what might be a silly question. If we extend the framework to include support for some other platform (VCV rack or maybe a DAW's native format; Rack extensions or what have you) How do we distribute that? Are we allowed to put that up on github? I know (well, "think with confidence") the license says not to call it ASPiK, and not to call it "your own" framework -- that's clear. But surely we're supposed to mention what it's derived from, or that it's an extension to ASPiK. right?

Mostly a hypothetical. 🙂 I don't think I'd be able to extend it beyond adding a new template for the format I want to support: and that's easily distributed as an extension that doesn't modify the framework itself.

Avatar
Admin
June 22, 2021 - 3:19 pm
Member Since: January 29, 2017
Forum Posts: 689
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Well, the bottom line has to do with packaging it and selling or distributing it as a plugin framework. For open source, the idea is that if you want to extend it in a way that would modify the underlying code, you would do that and issue a pull request, then I'd merge that into a new version for all to have. If you are just extending it but not modifying the SDK files, then yes that would be easily distributed as an extension, with a link to the GitHub page. 

Will 

Forum Timezone: America/New_York

Most Users Ever Online: 152

Currently Online:
6 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Chaes: 56

Skyler: 48

StevieD: 46

Derek: 46

Frodson: 45

Peter: 43

TheSmile: 43

Nickolai: 43

clau_ste: 39

jeanlecode: 37

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 1

Members: 768

Moderators: 1

Admins: 6

Forum Stats:

Groups: 13

Forums: 42

Topics: 842

Posts: 3347

Moderators: W Pirkle: 689