miRack by mifki Limited - Live!!!

rs2000

@Vortico said:

GPL software can not be published on the App Store regardless of whether it’s free or commercial and whether the source code is made available or not, so I doubt anyone will do it.

Without permission, you're right, because all iOS apps must statically link proprietary blobs to run.
However, the copyright holder of the GPL software can grant an exception if asked for permission, and Apple will allow it.

If I was a developer then I'd be more than happy to do that, but I would also try to make sure such permissions are a reliable basis to do continued development of an iOS app. No developer wants to invest a lot of time and have to dump their creations one day.

mifki

Sort of (of course there are no blobs), but unless you announce that, everyone will avoid your GPL code now. GPL is a very special restrictive license and it’s better not to touch it than to rely only on additional permissions that as @rs2000 said can be taken away one day.

Vortico

@rs2000 said:
but I would also try to make sure such permissions are a reliable basis to do continued development of an iOS app.

Well sure, that's why developers should ask for permission before beginning work, rather than right before releasing it... First step for any engineering project is to get the boring legal checks out of the way, then engineer.

rs2000

@Vortico said:

@rs2000 said:
but I would also try to make sure such permissions are a reliable basis to do continued development of an iOS app.

Well sure, that's why developers should ask for permission before beginning work, rather than right before releasing it... First step for any engineering project is to get the boring legal checks out of the way, then engineer.

With 'reliable basis' I rather meant to say 'permissions not be taken away one day' like @mifki understood.

Vortico

@rs2000 said:
With 'reliable basis' I rather meant to say 'permissions not be taken away one day' like @mifki understood.

That's the idea behind granting irrevocable permission. When drafting up a contract for permission (which I'd likely author for a GPL exception for Rack), it's always necessary to include the time period, such as "permanently".

mifki

Back to good news, a developer of a very interesting and unique closed-source module contacted me and offered to build it for miRack. I will not give more details until it's done, but I'm very happy to see continued support from plugin developers. And from you guys, of course. Thanks everyone.

TheVimFuego

@mifki said:
Back to good news, a developer of a very interesting and unique closed-source module contacted me and offered to build it for miRack. I will not give more details until it's done, but I'm very happy to see continued support from plugin developers. And from you guys, of course. Thanks everyone.

Good news indeed, I’m sure all platforms can flourish in their own right once the dust settles.

Amazing the music making power we can carry around and maybe take for granted sometimes.

rs2000

@Vortico said:

@rs2000 said:
With 'reliable basis' I rather meant to say 'permissions not be taken away one day' like @mifki understood.

That's the idea behind granting irrevocable permission. When drafting up a contract for permission (which I'd likely author for a GPL exception for Rack), it's always necessary to include the time period, such as "permanently".

Thank you. Good to have someone here with not only great development experience but good knowledge about licensing schemes too.

Synthi

+1

@dendy said:
Just my opinion, i'm not saying i'm right, but it's my point of view.

From what i did read, i'm fully supporting @mifki . I don't like how @Vortico and Grayscale are acting, it stinks to me. Don't like the way how they communicate. Don't see any reasonable arguments in their posts, just a bitter taste. That's how i see it, as i said, everybody has rights o make subjective opinion based on all available information. If there are some hidden information, well, i can't incorporate them into my point of view, obviously because they are hidden ).

@mifki Once again big thanks that you made possible thing which was stated on official VCV FAQ as impossible [*] People like you are those who are moving progress forward ! Big respect to you !

I hope miRack will grow, and hope you will get support of as much other module developers as possible !

[*] just to put things in context

Synthi

@glasstapper said:

@Vortico said:
Despite whether Vitaly traced them, tweaked them with the editor, or otherwise used them as a reference, they are a visually clear derivative work, like copying a song or photo or book.

I'm confused by what I'm assuming is an oversight: Are software emulations of existing hardware modules somehow exempt from being categorized as "derivative works"?

I wish I could work with him, but he's demonstrated that his goal is to dodge copyright law, rather than respect other people's work. If I allow him use of other VCV material such as the name, logo, commercial VCV plugins, Rack v1 GPL exception, etc, how can I expect him to use this IP morally/legally if he can't even figure out the basic things? Again, I've personally lost all trust in him in this area. This may be just an entirely personal thing for me, but I think it's rooted in valid reasons.

You could settle your differences and then agree to abide by the terms set forth in a contract, agreeing to proceed "from X date forward" under the newly agreed-upon terms, but... that would require legal counsel, not to mention a desire to cooperate with each other.

For what it's worth, I'm but an end-user of a music creation toolkit, and not a professional/working musician. I'd registered and downloaded VCV Rack over a year ago when a friend of mine who took out a second mortgage in order to afford to purchase modular synthesis hardware described VCV to me as being "like a free version of Reaktor, only instead of using 'Blocks' it has emulations of a ton of modules I wish I could afford." In effect, it was introduced to me as a way to try-before-you-buy, (which I thought was genius!) and I applaud the work you've done—both in coding the software and networking with a community of synth manufacturers—to make VCV what it is. I gather the VCV developer community also features a sizable portion of developers who—like the Reaktor user group—strictly develop software as an alternative to manufacturing hardware. I'm not an active participant, and until recently I'd not lurked in the forums or paid much mind to how or what VCV has been developing.

However... as an end user, the experience of using VCV Rack (that is: patching by way of pointing-clicking-dragging, etc.) wasn't to my liking. Not to mention, it choked the processor of my aging MacBookPro, so I never really took to using it, figuring "Cool, but I already have a license to use Reaktor. This seems redundant to me."

Over the past few years, I've found myself using MIDI hardware in my studio less and have been using my iPad more for musical projects, preferring the simplicity of tapping and dragging to control a parameter on a touchscreen over having to manually assign MIDI CC to software. The friend I'd mentioned who had initially introduced me to VCV rarely uses it either, as he has opted to sink loads of money into having the fully-tactile experience that modular synth hardware affords one. Different strokes—and budgets—for different folks.

In a perfect world, I'd like to see "VCV for iPad"—a fully cross-compatible piece of software that allows users to create/edit/save .vcv files on an iPad which could then be transferred to PC/Mac via Dropbox, GoogleDrive or similar cloud services. (I've not mentioned Linux as I don't run it and do not know what services of this sort are available for Linux.) I'd also like to be able to use my iPad to import/open/perform-with/play .vcv files created on other platforms without being limited to running it on a computer with a fully-installed version of VCV Rack on it and an audio interface and MIDI controller connected to it.

In reading through several forum threads of this ongoing dispute, I've concluded that this fully cross-compatible piece of software for iPad is being roadblocked by persons claiming that their intellectual property was "stolen" by someone who I recognize as "The Opportunist" who saw the demand for and pursued the creation of an iOS app which was deemed to difficult a task to take upon in a forum thread referenced here moments ago.

It is my understanding, @Vortico, that you have been pursuing development of VCV Rack in a different direction, one which does not include developing ports for mobile/touchscreen devices. I gather that you have been working towards allowing users the ability to host VST plugins within VCV Rack, and that working on an iOS or Android port of VCV would require more resources than you currently have at your disposal, not to mention having to circumvent limitations of the respective iOS/Android operating systems and their proprietary idiosyncrasies. However, I recognize that @mifki has made an effort and done the legwork of creating a if not the "working version" of an iOS port, and I think it unfortunate that his efforts have been met with derision by the existing community of VCV Rack users, who have attempted—and continue to—shut down his further development of the ideal end-product I've described.

I don't understand the reasons for resenting what has already happened, or regretting having made the source code available via open source licensing. The complaints set forth are bordering on "irreconcilable differences." I'm of the opinion that @mifki has displayed a desire to deliver a product which members of the VCV Rack community requested and were denied. This would appear to be done in the spirit of "giving more than taking". The cost of miRack is quite modest in comparison to other synth software available for iOS. @mifki strikes me as having made multiple attempts to correct whatever errors he was accused of, and has communicated his intentions to the persons he has offended. I will also mention that @mifki has displayed efforts to accommodate user requests made by persons present in this forum.

Full disclosure: I am registered as a beta tester of miRack, and am impressed by the pace at which @mifki has been releasing bug-fixes and adding user requests. Specifically grateful for his willingness to learn the AB3 SDK in order to implement a means of utilizing miRack within DAWs on the iOS platform. I would hardly call his actions a case of having stolen someone else's work in order to make a quick buck by offering to sell it to the existing VCV user base through the AppStore.

I can see where you, @Vortico, would be upset by someone having taken what you had hoped would remain a non-commercial project and putting it for sale on a platform some would choose to describe as the antithesis of the open-source community. Apple is notorious for making changes to their operating system in ways that baffle and upset both developers and users alike, but I am of the opinion that an agreement can be reached in a matter of recognizing that @mifki's intentions were not malicious or profit-motivated, and that a resolution can be reached.

I'd like to petition all parties involved to come to a settlement, please, as I honestly believe that this ongoing debate is preventing either party from focusing their attention on what really matters most to the majority of the persons who've been watching this debate sprawl across multiple forums: further development of a fully-functioning product that allows end users such as myself to create music on the platform(s) of our choosing.

The beauty of 'modular' lies in its flexibility.

🙏🏻☝🏻☝🏻☝🏻

Synthi

@Vortico said:

Are software emulations of existing hardware modules somehow exempt from being categorized as "derivative works"?

No. If you make a software emulation of a hardware module, you must have permission from the hardware designer. The panel design, brand, name, etc are all IP that must be licensed/authorized.

the truth is that panel components are designs from the hardware makers, I mean Selco, Rogan, C&K... so all that is plain nosense . Drawing a top view of a hardware component and claiming the property???
I’ve been into gfx design and only using the exact file, I mean using the original file could be considered as stoling IP. Another interpretation of a top view of the same component of course will look almost the same!!!
I can’t understand the rigid and ugly attitude from Andrew and Wes.
Hope you guys can take your egos aparte and accept what in the day you choose to share and view the great thing Mirack is offering to iOS musicians.

Korakios

I talked this over my young niece while picking her from school. I must admit it was tough game and took her 20 minutes to figure it out

She told me to post:

Either collaborate with the iOS dev and give him the money you estimated for porting to iOS
Or completely change the graphics and any reference on the iOS version and carry on.

PS. I tend to the second

reasOne

@Vortico
If you've read the "Why hasn’t VCV developed its own iOS port?" section of https://community.vcvrack.com/t/postmortem-on-racks-gpl-relicensing/6253, you'll see why miRack is far from being a "VCV Rack for iOS" on a technical level.

Why are you waisting time arguing then if it’s so far away from your mighty and infinitely superior rack ?? Why are you all worked up and determined to blow this outta proportion over something you say isn’t even close to what you’re defending
The one that runs like pure $#@t on every desktop or laptop I’ve ever Used but Mirack runs flawless

@OnfraySin said:
Blablablabla

I want use VCV rack on Mac —> The performance is ridiculous bad, a waste of energy and hot.

>

So for me, it is very easy.

MIRack

Yes

Philandering_Bastard

Just to recap: we are having this discussion here, on the Audiobus forum, because the developer of miRack was banned on the VCV forum and ALL his posts were deleted.

dendy

@Vortico
If you've read the "Why hasn’t VCV developed its own iOS port?" section of https://community.vcvrack.com/t/postmortem-on-racks-gpl-relicensing/6253, you'll see why miRack is far from being a "VCV Rack for iOS" on a technical level. Vitaly has done a bit of work to produce a minimum-viable product, but not most of the work to create a professional product.

I'm honestly curious if you are listening just yourself or you even bothered to read reactions of iOS community to miRack and users experience with it. It looks like this important factor is somehow omitted in this discussion.

Everybody here is literally AMAZED how well miRack performs. Some users seven shared experience that it performs BETTER than VCV rack on desktop (in terms of CPU demand).

People have great user experience with miRack, that is fact. Just read threads on this forum. Everybody's experince with miRack and miRack dev is just *****/5 here.

For us, iOS users, miRack IS professional product, we like, we use it. Yes, there are missing ome modules from VCV rack - but guess what. It doesn't mean anything. We learned to live with compromises on iOS. All apps here have some compromises and we are OK with that. We are looking for brighter future, but we are avare of not ideal pricing model and low incomes of IOS devs, so we are also realistic (or at least most of us are trying to be)

At the end - there is still hell amount of modules available, for years of fun even if any new module will be added. "Basic" modules set looks way much better than "Fundamentals" on desktop.

So, now. What is your REAL goal ? Be honest. You wrote lot lot of things about reasons why this and that is not right.

Let's put all this aside. Try summarise it to few sentences what you really WANT.

Do you want miRack to be removed from Appstore ? Do you want to remove some essential features from it which will render it basically unisable ? And if yes, what you're offering to us, users ? Some uncertain promise one day you will release your own "better and true" VCV rack for iOS (even through you still have on your FAQ page a LOT of reasons why you will NOT do it) ?

What will be outcome of this meaningless flamewar to us, users ?

Note bellow the line : If it is really true that you banned @mifki from your forum and disallowed him to reply to your posts publicly, then just this one plain facts stands as strong argument against your intentions. If your intentions would be totally honest with users interests on first place, i can't see any reason to do such move.

anickt

@dendy 👍🏼

supadom

@reasOne said:

@Vortico
If you've read the "Why hasn’t VCV developed its own iOS port?" section of https://community.vcvrack.com/t/postmortem-on-racks-gpl-relicensing/6253, you'll see why miRack is far from being a "VCV Rack for iOS" on a technical level.

Why are you waisting time arguing then if it’s so far away from your mighty and infinitely superior rack ?? Why are you all worked up and determined to blow this outta proportion over something you say isn’t even close to what you’re defending

If I tried a royal gala apple with cox sticker I might be put off cox for life. I love cox!

Philandering_Bastard

@supadom said:

@reasOne said:

@Vortico
If you've read the "Why hasn’t VCV developed its own iOS port?" section of https://community.vcvrack.com/t/postmortem-on-racks-gpl-relicensing/6253, you'll see why miRack is far from being a "VCV Rack for iOS" on a technical level.

Why are you waisting time arguing then if it’s so far away from your mighty and infinitely superior rack ?? Why are you all worked up and determined to blow this outta proportion over something you say isn’t even close to what you’re defending

If I tried a royal gala apple with cox sticker I might be put off cox for life. I love cox!

😆

@dendy well said

supadom

@Philandering_Bastard said:

@supadom said:

@reasOne said:

@Vortico
If you've read the "Why hasn’t VCV developed its own iOS port?" section of https://community.vcvrack.com/t/postmortem-on-racks-gpl-relicensing/6253, you'll see why miRack is far from being a "VCV Rack for iOS" on a technical level.

Why are you waisting time arguing then if it’s so far away from your mighty and infinitely superior rack ?? Why are you all worked up and determined to blow this outta proportion over something you say isn’t even close to what you’re defending

If I tried a royal gala apple with cox sticker I might be put off cox for life. I love cox!

😆

@dendy well said

Hey, I own the copyright to that line!!!

wim

@supadom said:
Hey, I own the copyright to that line!!!

Does that include “derivative works”?

wim

Looks like the thread has been “sunk” ... meaning new additions don’t make it rise to the top of the list. A very wise move.

For anyone interested in following the thread (hopefully because you love miRack, and not just to follow the sad soap-opera), just favorite it with the star at the right-hand of the topic.

ipadmusic

@dendy Agree 100%
Right now miRack is one of the best iOS music apps. It is more stable and reliable than VCV Rack (I run VCV on i9 MBP and MiRack on a first gen of iPad Pro). And I hope @Vortico and Vitaliy resolve all the issues so we can keep using miRack...

cian

@brambos said:

>

I've talked to several authors who created graphics for their modules - those who do not allow to use their existing graphics, told me that I'd need to make my own, but no-one said I could not use the same layouts. If I knew Grayscale's understanding of panel graphics copyright is different and extends to the module layouts, I'd have changed them right from the beginning -- this is not a problem at all -- as I did as soon as Wes requested it.

While I'm not a lawyer, I've seen enough of IP law over the years to suspect that Grayscale's understanding was wrong if that's truly what they said. However using the same color palette and design for buttons would be infringing for sure - in this case it's hard to be entirely sure given its all derivative of the original hardware. Not that it really matters as a law suit would bankrupt everyone involved...

rezidue

@Vortico so you banned the guy on your forum and felt like the right place to have this discussion was on here?

TheOriginalPaulB

@cian said:

@brambos said:

>

I've talked to several authors who created graphics for their modules - those who do not allow to use their existing graphics, told me that I'd need to make my own, but no-one said I could not use the same layouts. If I knew Grayscale's understanding of panel graphics copyright is different and extends to the module layouts, I'd have changed them right from the beginning -- this is not a problem at all -- as I did as soon as Wes requested it.

While I'm not a lawyer, I've seen enough of IP law over the years to suspect that Grayscale's understanding was wrong if that's truly what they said. However using the same color palette and design for buttons would be infringing for sure - in this case it's hard to be entirely sure given its all derivative of the original hardware. Not that it really matters as a law suit would bankrupt everyone involved...

I suspect Andrew and Wes both know they haven’t got a legal leg to stand on and they’re just looking for shit to throw...

cian

I can buy a lot of arguments, but the idea that MiRack is 'technologically inferior' is ridiculous. I like VCVRack, but my laptop (fairly modern) sounds like a bloody jet plane when I run it. MiRack performs just fine on my Air 2. And the interface is perfectly responsive - which has not been my experience on OSX.

I get that your feelings were hurt because you weren't consulted - but it would probably help your case if you stuck to the facts.

Vortico

If anyone wants a takeaway from me, it's simple. Vitaly is profiting off someone else's hard work without releasing source code, and he demonstrates no respect to a contractor that I work with (Grayscale). That's it, you can go home now guys.

If you're wondering why I'm posting here, it's solely because Vitaly released cherry-picked private emails, requiring me to defend my side of the story. What do I want from him? Nothing---I joined, wanting to answer anyone's questions so people can see this issue from my perspective, and by now I've address everyone's valid concerns. There isn't much more to say.

TheOriginalPaulB

Plop!

espiegel123

@Vortico said:
If anyone wants a takeaway from me, it's simple. Vitaly is profiting off someone else's hard work without releasing source code, and he demonstrates no respect to a contractor that I work with (Grayscale). That's it, you can go home now guys.

If you're wondering why I'm posting here, it's solely because Vitaly released cherry-picked private emails, requiring me to defend my side of the story. What do I want from him? Nothing---I joined, wanting to answer anyone's questions so people can see this issue from my perspective, and by now I've address everyone's valid concerns. There isn't much more to say.

Andrew, by your own admission Vitaly has honored the permissive source code license that was in effect for the source code he used, and yet you keep muddying the waters by accusing him of profiting off your source code EVEN THOUGH THE LICENSE PERMITTED THAT.

I get that you wish you hadn't used that license, but your did.

Vitaly has offered to resolve the issue with a mediator and you reject it. If you want to show you aren't just being bitter, take up the offer.

mifki

@espiegel123 said:
Vitaly has offered to resolve the issue with a mediator and you reject it. If you want to show you aren't just being bitter, take up the offer.

Currently the conflict (the part of it that actually affects anything) is with Grayscale, so Andrew himself does not make a decision. I’m pretty sure they are friends and Andrew could communicate all this to Wes if he wanted, but from what we’ve seen here, that’s unlikely.

Wes’s position and style are pretty much the same, but he’s even less communicative.

Btw, I offered Wes a monetary compensation based on the sales of the version 1.00 of the app - the one where my component graphics was, maybe, too similar to his. I haven’t heard back yet.