The original question is just strange. It is like saying the ONLY difference between consensual sex and rape is one gives you permission... OF COURSE that is the ONLY difference. But that is a HUGE ONLY...one that will land you in jail!
Whoa, no no no. That is not the only difference! Let's leave rape out of this.
Same with piracy. If someone gives you permission to give something away, it makes no sense to sell it in the first place, so I really have no idea the footing on which your question lies, because I don't know of that happening where copyrights are involved.
Well it does happen and I've given examples. I'm surprised to see here that so few people seem to be aware of what free software is. You know you can take any free software, like GIMP for example and you can sell it.
You can't 'grant' someone a piece of something for a fee.
I think the stock market would disagree with this. But I think we're drifting from the topic, I'm not talking about giving pieces and I'm not talking about physical objects, I'm talking about the ability to give a copy, an identical clone, of something to you and in software we call that sharing whether there is a cost or not.
The 'b' in your first question remains absurd. You ask the question why would you download it and not pay, and the answer is clearly "BECAUSE YOU SAID I COULD." If someone puts out a pie with a sign "PLEASE TAKE" - then they really aren't entitled to sit around and say "why do you feel OK taking it - the only difference between taking that and theft is that I gave you permission."
This is something that is happening every day, which is why I'm interested to learn why people do pay for software they can get for nothing.
Here's something to consider: 90% of the posts on this thread havehttps://duckduckgo.com/ no idea what your original post was asking.
I think you're right, and I think the reason is because very few people understand what free software actually is and they don't realise that this software is all around them and they are using it every day.
I don't get the question. Isn't this what Native Instruments does ? Kontakt player is free and then you pay for the content..
Kontakt player costs nothing but it isn't
free software, it's freeware, the two aren't synonymous. You can't for example look at the source code of Kontakt player, make changes, add features etc. and then pass it on to someone else.
So Reaper is the very LAST piece of software I would ever dream of taking advantage of without paying. Your model, at least insofar as I understand it, would fall into the same category.
Yes Reaper is very similar, although it is not free software... yet.
Owning a lot of stuff feels good.
I think you might be right.
He is talking about licensing GPL which is really for software and not VSTs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
VSTs are software. For example here is the source code for a harp library I'm working on
https://github.com/davidhealey/libreHarp - it's free, you can take it and do with it what you want.
Except he wants to make sure the samples aren't GPL
Samples can't be GPL, they don't have source code and the GPL needs source code.
Basically he wants to be true to open source while still making sure he makes his investment back
Yes, 100% correct. I want to make commercial freedom respecting software.
So bluntly would you buy his instruments if I bought them uploaded them to my file storage and gave them away free? That is the question.
Pretty much. Except I know people will buy them, I more interested in why they would buy them.
Also sidenote if you release the samples CC Non-Commercial they can't legally be used for any commercial purpose so no one who buys your library could use it for selling music that they make with your library. This is why I never use non-comm stuff from Freesound.
Yes I'm pretty sure you're right about this which is why I said I'd use something like CCNC, but it would need to allow the user to be able to use the samples to produce music, they just wouldn't be able to resell them as a sample library, at least not without heavy modification.
Oh that was a lot of quote!