Open Source Spectral warping wavetable synth

There's a big difference between "Free" and demo versions. I've personally found that most music software makers always have an angle or strategy to up-sell when they say their tools are free, and that's simply NOT free. Now even demo versions of software give you no accurate indication of what happens behind the scenes.

Free plug-ins often install additional software, security tools (digital dongles) and drivers that can cause problems even once they are installed, especially if you don't purchase the full version. They also often don't uninstall correctly as well. I tried Vital months ago and found the free version to be limited in many subtle ways and processor intensive, which likely is not as much the case in the full version.

I am very cautious now about plug-ins and other software offered online as "Free" because after trying out the free version of Fresh Air by Slate digital a few months ago, it never managed to run and my DAW and computer experienced total failure and data corruption caused by their licensing tool, which cost me a lot more than the full version cost, but it also cost the company me, as a potential customer. Luckily I routinely make backups, I can't afford to lose my work and data by trying dodgy apps... No exceptions.

It doesn't look OSS to me.

I haven't registered and downloaded the software from their website but I doubt it would come with any licensing or OSS mention. The marketing doesn't mention OSS either.

There's at least one thread asking for clarification on the subject which, as far as I can tell, is not formaly answered.

The repo you linked is 13 months old but it's informative nonetheless:

> Do not distribute the presets that come with the free version of Vital. They're under a separate license that does not allow redistribution.

So my best guess is that the author is granting himself an exemption and distributing that software as a closed source software. Which is legal, it certainly helps that there's only one author.

If we really wanted to know what's going on exactly, we should download the software from their website. If it's advertised as being OSS and under the GPL, we should ask for a copy of the source code of the distributed software, as provided by the GPL.

I had no idea this was open source. Vital is an amazing synth, and really gives Serum and Pigments competition.

This is one of the most important benefits of open-source software ("free software" in the FSF sense): the source code gives you an accurate indication of what happens behind the scenes, and if it contains "licensing tools" or other malware you can remove it, or run a sanitized version prepared by a trustworthy person.

Vital seems to have been open-source for less than 13 months, following years of dithering: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30622014

It's universally accepted that aggregating free software with non-free data does not make the software non-free. The explanation in the repo about the licensing is correct and perfectly okay from an OSS perspective.

The software's copyright holder cannot infringe his own copyright by distributing the software from his own website, even if he also offers a GPL license. If he were accepting contributions from other people you might have a case, but he says he isn't.