Flowstone Guru Download area

[tester]

Exo - If Flowstone was like a normal programming, I would maybe agree with you. But this is somewhat hermetic environment. It seems to have the same "boundaries" like in regular music production. Even the complexity of schematics can be relatively easily evaluated (with split into ruby, asm, coding, prim based, non-programming components).

The attribution should be a matter of fair use (otherwise - do I have to attribute a thing, that I can do on my own from scratch, and it will look and work the same way, because there is no other way? Like simple panner or simple vector slider?). "Fair use" = "don't remove attribution details from modules you have taken if you did not rewired these modules" + "attribute help of other people (give them credits somewhere)". Complex blablaing will not make things better, nor easier nor more friendly.

[Perfect Human Interface]

Please make it shorter.

I believe the usage license portion is more for the sake of the uploaders knowing what they're allowing people to do than for the sake of the downloader. The downloader can do anything with it besides sell it as-is or claim it as their own. Simple as that I think. It's common sense stuff, just like sharing on the forums here.

[Exo]

Exo - If Flowstone was like a normal programming, I would maybe agree with you. But this is somewhat hermetic environment. It seems to have the same "boundaries" like in regular music production. Even the complexity of schematics can be relatively easily evaluated (with split into ruby, asm, coding, prim based, non-programming components).

The attribution should be a matter of fair use (otherwise - do I have to attribute a thing, that I can do on my own from scratch, and it will look and work the same way, because there is no other way? Like simple panner or simple vector slider?). "Fair use" = "don't remove attribution details from modules you have taken if you did not rewired these modules" + "attribute help of other people (give them credits somewhere)". Complex blablaing will not make things better, nor easier nor more friendly.

I kind of get what you are saying, but as a programmer a schematic or module is no different to me than a text file containing code. It is still 'code' just more visual.

Simple things don't really count in my eyes, if it is that simple and common knowledge then nobody can claim copyright , so no need to give credit for stuff like that.

I don't want something complex either but I would also like to clearly state expectations of what can and cannot be done and make them specific to Flowstone and Flowstone Guru.

[Exo]

Please make it shorter.

I believe the usage license portion is more for the sake of the uploaders knowing what they're allowing people to do than for the sake of the downloader. The downloader can do anything with it besides sell it as-is or claim it as their own. Simple as that I think. It's common sense stuff, just like sharing on the forums here.

I will try and make it shorter, I was just trying to cover edge cases. Because I kept feeling like someone would take the piss and then turn round and say "Well the license didn't say I couldn't do that!".

I agree though the shorter the better will just need to try make it more concise without losing anything.

[Nubeat7]

well done exo i would agree with the terms as they are, all important things are clear and its written in an easy to understand style,

the length is also not too long, i think everyone can read and understand this under 2 minutes (which was impossible for me with the different creative common licenses)

[tester]

Exo - you are assuming, that people don't want to credit/attribute. We are too small and too hermetic community (these thousands of registered are probably mostly spam bots; I doubt that there are more than 1500-3000 true users, counting here and on SM forum by at least 1 post written) to have such problems. In my works, I credit people, not modules, because I know who or whose work helped me, but have no idea where from individual modules that I scrambled came from.

On the other hand - if someone exports an exe or VST - then how can you tell whether something is attributed, if developed thing is in guts and does need to have a gui? Or -should it be attributed if a person learned meanwhile how to create such a thing from scratch? But what will happen, it will create the mood of suspiciousness or mistrust. Don't kick a mosquito with a tank or a rocket.

Sure, there is a trend of multi-user development of individual tools, but in this case - credits to all developers are included, not because it is a requirement, but because it is a part of the trend. It's trendy to be inside the pack of developers who created something. This makes a society.

My bet is, that if you over-formalize it, then less people will ask for assistance on something due to uncertainty on what actually they are posting on the forum (many things come from the past/SM and other sources that emerged after switch between SM and FS).

[Exo]

Exo - you are assuming, that people don't want to credit/attribute. We are too small and too hermetic community (these thousands of registered are probably mostly spam bots; I doubt that there are more than 1500-3000 true users, counting here and on SM forum by at least 1 post written) to have such problems. In my works, I credit people, not modules, because I know who or whose work helped me, but have no idea where from individual modules that I scrambled came from.

I'm not assuming people don't want to credit at all, I'm just making clear what is expected of people who download and share or sell work containing the modules.

The license is probably one of the most unrestrictive ever written. Remember there is no requirement to credit an author unless it forms a significant part of your work, if you are just sharing work in the forum that contains these modules then really you don't need to do anything because the said modules should retain there Tooltip help so the author can be easily determined. If you are releasing closed source work then if the modules used are significant then a credit is required somewhere (for instance in a manual). Maybe I should make the open source, closed source distinction clearer?

So basically if you are releasing the source you don't need to do anything, the only real restriction there is that your work should be significant and you are not just sharing the module 'as-is'.

Also I understand here that we are a small community with a "culture" of sharing and a lot of things don't need to be said, we operate by unwritten rules of common sense.
But I believe that the Flowstone user base extends far beyond this forum and I am trying to reach them also. They are not apart of our little community here so may not share our values or even understand that these modules are not public domain, this license makes that clear.

On the other hand - if someone exports an exe or VST - then how can you tell whether something is attributed, if developed thing is in guts and does need to have a gui? Or -should it be attributed if a person learned meanwhile how to create such a thing from scratch? But what will happen, it will create the mood of suspiciousness or mistrust. Don't kick a mosquito with a tank or a rocket.

Again unless the modules used form a significant part of your work you don't have to credit the author.

Sure, there is a trend of multi-user development of individual tools, but in this case - credits to all developers are included, not because it is a requirement, but because it is a part of the trend. It's trendy to be inside the pack of developers who created something. This makes a society.

My bet is, that if you over-formalize it, then less people will ask for assistance on something due to uncertainty on what actually they are posting on the forum (many things come from the past/SM and other sources that emerged after switch between SM and FS).

I don't believe it will affect people's willingness to ask for help. Keep all the tool tips and credits in place and make sure you are not just sharing an unmodified version and there is no problem.

[tester]

Well - we see (in a year or so) how it goes in practice (I'm not judging; just making conclusion).

[Perfect Human Interface]

It's a good discussion, but in the end I think whatever you feel comfortable with Exo is fine, even if it's more than a few lines. People should only have to read it once I think.

[mHz]

I think having these modules in the public domain under some (poorly written) "legal" claims opens the door to all kinds of misunderstandings. It's like a present with conditions. For instance look what we did years ago, we know what good syntax is, we collectively made it. It certainly is out of my hands now, and I don't have a care in the world about the subject.
The other thing is that for basic things your contract forces people to claim legal rights, while generally accepted formats are public domain already. For example you did not invent the phaser, if you make a phaser that is yours in a quirky way, why share it's parts and expect something. And do these parts invent anything other than parts to a phaser?