let's say a hollywood studio makes a beloved movie. then a group of fans 20 years later remake the movie shot for shot in their back yard and release it for free, and people also love it. then someone comes and takes the remake, changes the cover and then charges for it. thats basically whats happened here if i understand it correctly.

 

roger nichols would have made the GUI far more ugly, added ilok 5 protection and would have asked for 399 euro per synth.

but what is funny with the discoDSP thing is that you can not crack and steal it, since all the license does is to grant you access to support. and if you actually want and need this, you have to register. :P

 

this is wrong... why doing this.. nah.. i will never use that

 

Last edited: Mar 8, 2026 at 5:50 PM

if the back yard movie was specifically released creative commons would be a closer analogy

 

Oh man, to see a K2000/K2500 emulation with the ability to load in CD-ROM images and even virtualized ROM boards (like the Orchestral Board, for example) would be lovely!

 

DiscoDSP could have contributed to the project.

Instead take it, do the most easy task (GUI and such) compared to the emulation part.
And charge for it ... but without official ROMs download of course.

I wonder how guys alive who created the real synths (like Mr Kemper himself) will take a PAID product, without official ROM support.

Open Source project is one thing.
Paid is another.
Even if we all know the grey area around "download ROM only if you own the synth"

PS : DiscoDSP doesn't charge that much for it btw ... it could have been worse.

 

There was already such a project (based on reverse engineering), but it has been abandoned by the creator (because of lack of time and fear of a lawsuit). See this:
https://audiosex.pro/threads/new-kurzweil-k2000-vst-but-is-it-real.80510/

 

You have nothing to worry about. The GUI is off-putting and I couldn't get the plugin to work with the ROM I tried. Binned it.

 

They don't change *anything* for it (they can't, for licensing reasons). Their version (such that it is) is freely downloadable from them.
What you are buying is "priority tech support" - that's it. Although it doesn't say it on the "Buy Now" button of course.

A "license" to get you priority tech support (probably means your email is automatically sent to ChatGPT and emailed back to you a few days earlier that it otherwise would be). They still can't legally help you with the firmware without being in real legal jeopardy.

So yes, for the people that don't know how to copy files or get it working, that priority tech support money might prove... not quite useless.

 

I personally had long discussions with that guy and he leaved me a bitter taste, I really hope he fails in life, he is profiting not only from you but even from his fair clients ...I from since have not upgraded any license from him, hope he closes shop soon!

 

we may as well pack that emulation of him and do the same with new interface ...could be an idea

 

that's almost a good analogy except that the discodsp product is free, unless you decide to pay for priority support. so you had everything right except for "and then charges for it".

 

I'm not playing devil's advocate here, but if the license allows for it, if DiscoDSP is crediting them and if you can get the DiscoDSP plugin for free, then... what's really the issue?

 

he's "selling" tech support that no-one is going to buy. The page even links and gives credit to the Gearmulator github. His mention of a DX7 emulation might point to the other products he sells also being borrowed code; which might be interesting to look at, if not already known. Maybe he's trying to make some point about the licensing by doing it. This thread is the first mention I have seen of it.

 

release discoduck's shit to the scene. done. not that I really give two shits one way or the other...

 

If there's no issue for you, then there's no issue for you.

I wonder though, if you'd spent years and a lot of skill, time and effort into making something cool, and you were letting people use it for free, and some other company came along and took all your work, badged it with their logo and started selling it on their site for profit - would you still have no issue with this? Or would you be, at least, a little pissed off about it?

There's no "legal" problem with it - they are abiding by the terms of the license, but ethically/morally, for *me* at least, there is an issue, and also in the way they are selling it - it's kinda hoodwinking people into thinking they are buying a license to software that the developer can support, bug fix and improve etc, when all they are actually "buying" is premium support - whatever that means.

But if others don't care, that's fine too.

 

My suggestion is that if you want to avoid that happening, look into an open-source license that is strictly share-alike, meaning they can't use it commercially if they're forking from your code.

Edit: I think I was purposefully obtuse about it, I meant a license that has source code available but prohibits selling it.

 

Last edited: Mar 8, 2026 at 11:44 PM

The problem is that the developer of the project gets to pick the license. GPLv3 is one of dozens of licenses available, so if you're sticking with that, you shouldn't be mad about it when it happens. I mean, you can be mad, but you got mad because of a choice that started from you in the first place.

 

They're not mad, and they're not saying that the guy doesn't have the right to do it, or trying to stop it etc. They are saying, it makes them feel icky, which is a human reaction and is, I think, perfectly understandable.

Just because someone *can* do something, doesn't mean you aren't entitled to feel that what they are doing is a bit scummy.

They are well aware of how they chose to license their code.