I just heard about this one:
An alternative firmware for Mutable Instruments Clouds which enables real-time slicing / beat-repeat features ported from the Kammerl Kaske VST plugin suite. The original four modes of the official firmware are still present and have not been modified. This firmware simply adds a fifth mode to your Clouds module with new real-time beat and sound manipulation features.
Well sounds very interesting…maybe I will check it out later today and post back!
I think this is the first example of proprietary, closed-source alternative firmware for a Mutable module. Of course, releasing closed-source proprietary derivatives of the original firmware is permitted under the MIT license under which the Mutable code is released, thus he hasn’t done anything wrong. No doubt he doesn’t want to reveal the (real or imaginary) trade secrets in his/her code, which is derived from a proprietary VST plug-in which s/he sells, I believe. Anyway, an interesting development.
Someone asked “Could this Kammerl Beat-Repeat mode be combined with the Parasites modes/modifications please?” The answer is yes (assuming sufficient flash storage for the extra code), but only Kammerl can do it, because only s/he has access to both his/her code and the Clouds/Parasites code. That’s a convoluted way of stating the obvious: that the benefits of open-source code are lost when it becomes closed-source.
“That’s a convoluted way of stating the obvious: that the benefits of open-source code are lost when it becomes closed-source.”
That’s only true if you have a restricted definition of both “benefits” and “open-source”.
Because MI uses the MIT license, this new extended firmware including the Kammerl Beat-Repeat effect now exist.
If MI has used the GPL, this new extended firmware including the Kammerl Beat-Repeat effect would very likely not have existed.
Nothing is lost. The only thing that has happened is that the world has gained is another firmware option. And for some a feeling of rightful indignation because they don’t agree with someone else’s licensing decision.
Well, the thing we do lose is the possibility to combine this new firmware with others freely.
Just to add, I just got an unbrick request from someone that flashed this firmware so proceed with caution
@VarthDader You can’t lose what never existed.
@t2k I know and agree with your general logic, but we do lose the possibility of freely having parts or all of different firmwares combined into a new variant under the open source umbrella.
Nothing inherently wrong with somebody doing new stuff with modules we already value it´s just a shame it´s not done within the same open concept so as to have somebody (anybody) else adapt or improve it.
I am far from feeling indignation from it, quite happy this exists even with this minor issue.
t2k yes, sorry, I erred. I should have said "that a benefit of open-source code is lost when it becomes closed-source" - and that's the benefit identified byVarthdader above.
I don’t feel any righteous indignation. I was irritated by the initial failure to comply with the terms of the MIT licence, which requires reproduction of the copyright and permission notice, but that’s just my extreme pedantry.
@BennelongBicyclist IMHO, not complying with the terms of an Open Source license is annoying.