Device Details

bro really had claude compile code from a bunch of free, open source libraries and is charging $25.00 for it. I get that the licenses allow for you to do that, but is still lame.

Bro using open source licenses for their original intention smdh. Seriously some of yall act naive as hell.

Did you take a look at the code (which I open sourced)? Does it look like a low-effort vibe-coded project?

Unfortunately it's hard for end-users to tell between cobbled-together devices with a fancy UI and ones that were made with care to actually be usable in a serious project.

If you contact me in private, I will send you a 100% discount so you can actually test the device

Im not naive. I understand you are allowed to use open source, depending on the situation and license. I also just happen to think that taking something somebody else did, having claude re-wrap that into a plugin, and then charging $25 is lame. keep the free going. Pass it on.

Add an open source algo as a small part of something larger you build is one thing, but essentially just repackaging the original code? Weak.

Hey, maybe im wrong, and have been too quick to judge. Maybe there was a ton added / reconstructed in the guts, and im just being a brat. If so, my bad, but it appears to me that my original assumption is true.

@shinytheshiny: Have you studied the code in detail? Or better yet, have you tried building these yourself, since you claim to know what went into it?
Have you taken me up on my offer to get the devices for free and report back whether they feel low-effort or little added value?

If you do the above, you might understand why it's not safe for you to assume this is a bunch of sloppy vibe-coded devices. Rather than asking your friend Claude (not mine) "build me an emulation of a Neve EQ" and letting it hallucinate some mess that sounds nothing like it, takes your CPU hostage, and is built off of stolen IP anyway, I studied multiple open source codebases by people who know DSP better than myself. I compared the EQ curves with multiple big-name VST emulations of the same hardware. In one case (in fact, the device you're commenting about) this involved porting the code from a different programming language and in the process fixing a mistake in the original filter equations.

The authors of the code that I adapted all had different reasons to release the source: some used to charge for their plugins before open-sourcing them; others built them for their master's thesis. I've been in touch with them and they've been appreciative and supportive. I feel the same when someone builds on my open source code (I've been doing this since before Github existed and we all used Sourceforge).

I've decided when I built my first M4L device that all my code would be open source, regardless of whether I was legally required to do so. Plenty of companies build on MIT-licensed code without releasing any code, and it's all legal. And there's probably enough out there who are infringing the GPL-3 license, knowingly or not. I love that your response is what I get for doing things transparently.

Curious to hear what apparently reinforced your "original assumption".