Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sonic Pi v5

patreon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 110 posts

Re: Sonic Pi v5

#81

Post by gizajob »

kyle-rb wrote: post #50
gizajob wrote: post #8

why is the Amen Brother breakbeat included in this software as if it's open source and GPL / MIT license? Just because something has been stolen a million times, that doesn't make it public domain, it's still under copyright and owned by its publisher, who I'm pretty certain has never given it away under a free license.

It's worth noting that the particular recording they include[0] is not the original performance, it's a CC0 (public domain) recreation of the sample. So the recording itself has no copyright attached, but yes, there's still a question of the copyright on the composition. [0] https://freesound.org/people/Dolfeus/sounds/43389/

You might be correct but the link you've pasted is still of the original copyrighted breakbeat, not a recreation, on a site again falling victim to what it offers for free and Creative Commons not being free or Creative Commons.

Re: Sonic Pi v5

#82

Post by vachina »

Is it just me or does the “Pi” branding give the connotation of “underpowered, expensive and hobbyist quality”?

Suggest you drop the Pi name in your next project.

Re: Sonic Pi v5

#83

Post by spacechild1 »

samaaron wrote: post #78
spacechild1 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the kind response! > I’m also definitely not wanting to circumnavigate the GPL! You are going to great lengths to make sure that SuperSonic (and thus scsynth) can be used by non-GPL code. You are explicitly advertising in the README: > Your application code interacts only with the MIT-licensed client APIs and is not intended to be a derivative work of the GPL components. https://github.com/samaaron/superso…

> You are going to great lengths to make sure that SuperSonic (and thus scsynth) can be used from non-GPL code Sure because it’s my understanding that using a clearly documented protocol that doesn’t share internal data structures does not constitute a derivative work. I’m not trying to change anything rather make the boundary clear. >They clearly form a single combined program and therefore must comply with the GPL.…

> if the shape of the architectural boundary is the same as the networked OSC case then I think it’s very reasonable to argue that its aggregation and not derivative.

Where do you got that? The GPLv3 license text only says:

> A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit.

The JS/WASM and Erlang modules in SuperSonic are clearly combined to form a larger program. The GPL v3 does not say anything about networking protocols, "architectural boundaries" or sharing internal data structures.

The GPL v3 FAQ further clarifies:

> If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation

If you use a GPL-licensed library, your whole program must comply with the GPL. That's exactly why the LGPL exists: it adds an exception to the GPL so that a library may be used in a non-GPL program. James could have licensed scsynth under the LGPL, but he did not.

> I also don’t quite know what licenses you’re asking me to change.

The license of the JS and Erlang clients because they call into scsynth code (in the same process).

Re: Sonic Pi v5

#84

Post by peapicker »

markcerqueira wrote: post #73
harwoodr wrote: post #3

For those wondering what it actually is, as I was: https://sonic-pi.net/ "Sonic Pi is your free code-based music creation and performance tool."

Reminds me of ChucK: https://chuck.cs.princeton.edu .

I had a lot of fun with ChucK back in the day, really nice system.

Re: Sonic Pi v5

#85

Post by samaaron »

spacechild1 wrote: post #83
samaaron wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are going to great lengths to make sure that SuperSonic (and thus scsynth) can be used from non-GPL code Sure because it’s my understanding that using a clearly documented protocol that doesn’t share internal data structures does not constitute a derivative work. I’m not trying to change anything rather make the boundary clear. >They clearly form a single combined program and therefore must comply with the GPL.…

> if the shape of the architectural boundary is the same as the networked OSC case then I think it’s very reasonable to argue that its aggregation and not derivative. Where do you got that? The GPLv3 license text only says: > A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larg…

Fair - the aggregate clause does say “larger program” so I overstated. However, it doesn’t define combination, and “based on the Program” is defined in section 0 via copyright permission - which is why I keep returning to copyright rather than mechanism.

The JS client doesn’t call into scsynth code. In postMessage mode the client and the engine run in separate execution contexts with no shared memory, exchanging serialised OSC - the browser enforces that boundary the same way the kernel does between processes on a socket.

Also, the JS and Erlang clients are entirely my own code and copyright surely their licence isn’t in question. I think the question you’re actually raising is what obligations fall on users who combine their software with SuperSonic. You already state that my approach in Sonic Pi is fine.

Re: Sonic Pi v5

#88

Post by abc42 »

herpdyderp wrote: post #33
spacechild1 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly does the license matter if you just want to make music?

I want to embed the player into standalone video game binaries that don't require internet access to download the restrictively licensed files. I'm not looking to embed music file outputs, I want the music to remain customizable on the fly.

You could make your video game source AGPL. Source code is hardly a differentiating factor these days so you'll lose nothing.

Re: Sonic Pi v5

#89

Post by uwagar »

ud expect an open source / free software project to have some dignity and not link direct to patreon. times are changing.

Re: Sonic Pi v5

#90

Post by simongray »

xrd wrote: post #37

I love Sonic Pi. I am a terrible musician but I really enjoy finding chords for a song and then putting them into a sonic pi buffer and messing around. U2 started as a cover band, right, so maybe this is a path to becoming musical someday. The one thing that confuses me about Sonic Pi is the buffers/editor. I always wish I could replace the UI with my own embedded editor (emacs in my case). I would then be able to ma…

> I always wish I could replace the UI with my own embedded editor (emacs in my case)

Consider his his older project instead? https://overtone.github.io/

He even used to perform using emacs before he created Sonic Pi.

Post reply on HN