MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

Supercell - an expanded version of Clouds - Parasites beta
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Eurorack Modules Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next [all]
Author Supercell - an expanded version of Clouds - Parasites beta
forestcaver
I personally think it’s a shame commercial companies think it is acceptable to take an open source design, make minor changes and then sell it without releasing the sources as per the intention of the licence.

It’d be a shame for the open source community if other companies thought the same. I presume you’d also think it acceptable if, for example, a very large company that has recently started selling eurorack modules, cloned marbles under a different name and panel design, made minor changes and sold it without releasing the source changes? (Apart from a vague promise to “eventually” do so after they have made what they deem to be sufficient profit). If you dont think this is acceptable, why not?

It’s a small community and self-policing. If others think it’s acceptable, so be it. But I suspect some others may feel as I do that it does not feel good and will make future buying decisions accordingly. It actually makes me pretty sad (not cross or angry). There are other clouds-derived modules on the way with similar ui changes which will be open....

From a practical point of view, keeping the sources closed prevents people fixing their own modules or changing the firmware, adapting it to parasites, kammerl, etc. It completely ties them into a closed source world.

Anyway, it’s a better ui than original clouds and has many nice ideas. I suspect it would stand on its own two feet without the protectionism. Good luck and best wishes.
ayruos
Just chiming in here, Ollivier is free to do as he pleases, release designs after the first run or never release it - he's under no obligations as he's designing everything from the ground up. Until he releases it under any sort of license, it is closed source and it is entirely his decision what he wants to do with it.

When doing derivations from open source designs, it's always best practice to fork the project from the repository and pushing changes to your fork publicly for every little thing you do. That's the spirit of open source.

Personally, I don't care much - and I think Ollivier doesn't either. But irrespective of whether someone is doing a manufacturing run, limited or otherwise, it's always best practise to work in that way. If they're confident of their workmanship, they should also be confident that people will buy from the source and not build it for themselves/others. And even if they do - that's something that's beyond their control, if you're joining the open source club, you can't have it both ways.

Peace.
pld
From a practical point of view, there are also completely benign reasons for not releasing files immediately: fixing known bugs, cleaning up, or documentation.

While there are some on both sides, not everyone is a bad actor and there are a lot grey "it depends" areas, so the (seemingly invariably) black and white dogmatic discussions are totally pointless. Throwing around unquantified terms like "minor changes" or "superficial" isn't particularly helpful either -- it's always easy to downplay the effort needed to do something. Just because it looks simple doesn't make it easy or, more importantly, without costs. From where I'm sitting at least the "self-policing community" is pretty lopsided, and not(*) in a way I think is beneficial.

But on a brighter note: I got a heck of lot further with this UI than ever before smile Maybe that will transfer back somehow...


(*) edit: derp!
forestcaver
I understand where you are coming from Patrick and I appreciate what you’ve done for open source. From my point of view, I think that it is really important to honour the spirit of the licence. The reason being I think that better modules and software derive from open source. Once you start bending the spirit of open source licences (and look for loopholes) for commercial gain then everyone is the poorer.

Fair comment on the “minor changes” and apologies - I wasn’t thinking how it would come across when I wrote that.
GNU and GPL (which is the world I was most familiar with) certainly encourages people to make money and recoup costs and I am happy to admit that nothing we do is without cost that people should be allowed to recoup.

I personally have bought more Mutable Instruments modules purely because they are open source and I could try them on VCV Rack first and look at the schematics. I have bought them because it made me feel better “donating” to MI (even if Olivier doesn’t care about donations), even if I then went on and built another one for the fun of it. I hope and believe I am not alone in doing this. I’ve started designing my own modules and firmware based on the MI schematics and code in a very minor way, which I wouldn’t have done without Olivier’s generosity.
(Ps. When I bought an o_C pcb, I also spoke to Mxmxmx ages ago and bought one from him to ensure a donation to the o_C project, which I wouldn’t have done if it wasn’t open source)

For me a lot of the pleasure is in looking at the code and hardware and playing with it. I’ve learnt an awful lot from it being open sourced.

The implication from sempervirent is that the sources have not been released yet to prevent people selling clones, with comparison made to Olivier’s delay (which is not comparable for reasons above).

I haven’t seen claims that it has not been released because it is buggy or needs cleaning up. Is that the case?
pld
No doubt open source is hugely beneficial for the greater good (the greater goood). I don't know where the quality vs. OS causality or correlation lies or if it's just some kind of selection bias (although there are a lot of craptacular open source projects smile). You're probably right in that a search for loopholes (loopholery? loopholing?) and skirting the rules isn't a great way to set up a stable system. Vaguely thinking, relying on "spirit of the license" and "intent" might be leaving too much room for interpretation, but I wouldn't necessarily want a push to make everything 100% airtight either -- it's getting from (say) 80/20 to 99/1 that the diminishing returns tend to make things take a turn for the worse. Maybe I just naturally give people who are putting in some own effort a lot more leeway (or even leeway proportional to effort), especially for projects that are no longer being sold by the original developer. So it irks me when they get made out to be the bad guys, but meanwhile, others are just dumping 1:1 copies; and without some kind of protectionism, the chances of recouping costs tend rapidly to zero. And it's all a somewhat slippery slope anyway because different people place way different value on their time, which is hard to factor into the equation.
Maybe it's already as good as it gets, maybe there's a happier middle. Dunno.

Quote:
I personally have bought more Mutable Instruments modules purely because they are open source and I could try them on VCV Rack first and look at the schematics. I have bought them because it made me feel better “donating” to MI (even if Olivier doesn’t care about donations), even if I then went on and built another one for the fun of it. I hope and believe I am not alone in doing this. I’ve started designing my own modules and firmware based on the MI schematics and code in a very minor way, which I wouldn’t have done without Olivier’s generosity.

100% agree, Olivier is doing great and inspirational things.
But also, not everyone is, wants or has the means to be Olivier, nor should we necessarily expect them to smile

Quote:
I haven’t seen claims that it has not been released because it is buggy or needs cleaning up. Is that the case?

To clarify: I just meant in general, and wasn't claiming it's the case here. I certainly wasn't saying that the current code is buggy smile
As far as I'm concerned there's no need to pressure for immediate release, nor need reasons be given.

Anyway, thanks for the reasonable response. I'd suggest that if anyone wants to continue OS discussions, move it elsewhere or PM and free the space for demos smile
mskala
pld wrote:
mskala wrote:
The only "Northern Modular" I can find on the Net seems to be a Reverb dealer and not a manufacturer at all. If you mean North Coast, my designs are original, not "surface modifications" of anyone else's.

Perhaps Northern Light Modular?


Yeah, that's probably who they had in mind.
forestcaver
pld wrote:
Vaguely thinking, relying on "spirit of the license" and "intent" might be leaving too much room for interpretation, but I wouldn't necessarily want a push to make everything 100% airtight either

<snip>

So it irks me when they get made out to be the bad guys, but meanwhile, others are just dumping 1:1 copies;

<snip>

I'd suggest that if anyone wants to continue OS discussions, move it elsewhere or PM and free the space for demos smile


I think the only way these licences work is by community consent - no-one is realistically going to get a legal recourse. The only court that is valid for these sorts of licences is the court of public opinion... which is why I feel strongly about respecting the spirit of the licences...

Happy to leave it there :-) (I’ve probably said enough !) Thanks for a good-natured debate..... :-)

Good luck with the module sempervirent. All the best...
Struggle
I’m not sure why, but I preordered mine from Perfect Circuit. Hope to get shipping notification soon!!
tbecker
forestcaver wrote:
I personally think it’s a shame commercial companies think it is acceptable to take an open source design, make minor changes and then sell it without releasing the sources as per the intention of the licence.

It’d be a shame for the open source community if other companies thought the same. I presume you’d also think it acceptable if, for example, a very large company that has recently started selling eurorack modules, cloned marbles under a different name and panel design, made minor changes and sold it without releasing the source changes? (Apart from a vague promise to “eventually” do so after they have made what they deem to be sufficient profit). If you dont think this is acceptable, why not?

It’s a small community and self-policing. If others think it’s acceptable, so be it. But I suspect some others may feel as I do that it does not feel good and will make future buying decisions accordingly. It actually makes me pretty sad (not cross or angry). There are other clouds-derived modules on the way with similar ui changes which will be open....

From a practical point of view, keeping the sources closed prevents people fixing their own modules or changing the firmware, adapting it to parasites, kammerl, etc. It completely ties them into a closed source world.

Anyway, it’s a better ui than original clouds and has many nice ideas. I suspect it would stand on its own two feet without the protectionism. Good luck and best wishes.


I have yet to see any MI derived module that is anything other than downsized. In other words adding several attenuverters and extra controls seems simple, right? But my point is that no one else has done what the supercell has, adding many extra needed controls. So in so many ways than one, this is not a micro clouds but has some real thought and vision to the UI. That said only the original auther can exercise right to a licsense. The fact that MI gave up code and files is why we are looking at the supercell now and it looks really good to me!
Zymos
Blue Lantern Basics adds CV to all of Peaks' knobs and extra bipolar outputs. I think I saw a version of Rings that was expanded somehow also.
tdball
Any news on parasites support?
circuitburst
FYI, I'm happy to see both black and aluminum versions in stock at Perfect Circuit now! Congrats on getting Supercell released!
https://www.perfectcircuit.com/grayscale-supercell-black.html
https://www.perfectcircuit.com/grayscale-supercell-aluminum.html
gummyboy
How does it sound?
Is it less muddy or clearer?

Does it use same 32kHz SR?
sempervirent
tdball wrote:
Any news on parasites support?

That's up to @pld but I think it's getting close.

circuitburst wrote:
FYI, I'm happy to see both black and aluminum versions in stock at Perfect Circuit now!

Thanks, meant to post this earlier. Signal Sounds (Glasgow UK) will soon have some units in stock as well.

Those are the last units from the first batch. Second batch is in the works, ETA is probably January.

gummyboy wrote:
How does it sound?
Is it less muddy or clearer?

Does it use same 32kHz SR?

Max sampling rate is 32 kHz (like Clouds) but "muddy" sound with Clouds/Supercell has more to do with suboptimal gain staging and lack of parameter modulation than the sampling rate. See Olivier's comments here and here for more discussion.

Here's a demo that someone sent a while back:

pld
sempervirent wrote:
tdball wrote:
Any news on parasites support?

That's up to @pld but I think it's getting close.

It compiles, the module boots and the modes are selectable so yes, it seems close smile
There's some UI tweaking to be done, but mainly I haven't found time to do any systematic testing and measure whether there's any performance side-effects.
tau_seti
It’s super! I think it’s much easier to work with than Clouds due to the way the controls are broken out and the amplifier st the end helps whole heaps.
Struggle
This is by far my favorite out of all the versions I’ve had (regular, uBurst and Grains tabletop). The layout, I/O gains, mutes and built in modulation make a huge difference. Well done Grayscale!!
rennerom
What's the current draw? I don't see it published anywhere.
squarewavesurfer
Will you be selling panels and pcbs for this at some point?
sempervirent
rennerom wrote:
What's the current draw? I don't see it published anywhere.

+12V: 180 mA
-12V: 60 mA
+5V: not used

squarewavesurfer wrote:
Will you be selling panels and pcbs for this at some point?

Not planning to offer any DIY options right now, could happen later but it's not a big priority.
rennerom
Kind of a specific question, but as I’ve only ever tried clouds with parasites installed, does the reverb also affect the dry signal? If I remember right, that was unique to the parasites firmware, but I’m having a hard time finding the documentation to confirm that.
Struggle
rennerom wrote:
If I remember right, that was unique to the parasites firmware


That’s right. No verb on dry signal with original version.
Acquadar
OMG I received mine today. The original concept is so expanded. A huge sonic iceberg to discover. I’m pretty sure Olivier would love to hear Clouds dreaming electric sheeps...
sleepgardens
tbecker wrote:
The fact that MI gave up code and files is why we are looking at the supercell now and it looks really good to me!


Olivier didn't simply gave up code and files. They are released under CC BY-SA 3.0. Let's look into it:

You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. This point is the most important here.

Supercell should also be released under CC-BY-SA. An open source license, with files provided. I don't think there is any excuse to be made here. I am ok with waiting to recoup some production costs, but at the end of it files must be released, just like Oliver does.

And I've said this before for other Clouds clones (lately there is another one with independent blend parameters) which pcbs are sold by some website without providing files.

This is not a personal battle against Greyscale or any other designer, this is totally to make a fair use of what Olivier gifts to the community. Gift is the keyword here, he is in no way obliged to release his projects on a open source license and I think that is at least the right thing to do to honor the decision to share his designs with the community. At the end, if that wasn't the case, we wouldn't have this or any other Clouds rework.
forestcaver
sleepgardens wrote:

Supercell should also be released under CC-BY-SA. An open source license, with files provided. I don't think there is any excuse to be made here.


I agree. I think it’s a very sad situation.
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Eurorack Modules Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next [all]
Page 6 of 10
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group