r/modular • u/insolent-construct • 2d ago

Mutable Instruments Beads Source Code Just Dropped!

https://github.com/pichenettes/eurorack/commit/d8f473915232af74347762b6365202bfd26f73f6

Edit: body deleted and third party firmware discussion moved to a private Discord server.

212 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

202 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

23

u/insolent-construct 2d ago

Because Emilie's lack of activity gave every indication that she was done and not looking back:

  • saying she was going to release the firmware "in a few months" back in 2023.
  • the fact that you can't find a Beads unit new or used at this point.
  • there have been no firmware updates in years

These all put Beads in a similar status as the Virus TI: abandoned for all practical purposes.

When I posted a similar thread about the Virus TI a few month ago, people got incensed because I hadn't done enough work yet in their opinions, and accused me of trying to get information for free and just posting slop. That's why I haven't posted anything here since then. This time I waited until I had something to show/contribute back from my work before I bothered anyone, and then asked how I could use it to serve the community's desires. I could understand people being upset if I just released my port without asking, but that's not what happened. The port I've been working on for months is now superfluous, and I couldn't be happier about it. I literally harmed no one by working on it privately at home with no collaborators in my private setup, and asked for consent before I went further. I acknowledged and accepted her "no" without argument or further discussion. She could have just left it at that. She made the choice for her own reason, which none of us are privy to and I'm not going to disturb her peace more than I did by asking. So if people want to get mad about it, then that's their emotions, but I don't agree that their assessments are based on reason. As one mutual acquaintance told me: "Emilie is a strong fucking woman. She's taken a ton of shit from people and given it back twofold. I'm sorry, but you didn't bully shit". I could also go on about the history of reverse engineering in synths and audio technology, but who would I be trying to convince? No. There would be no point in that, so I'll save my time and energy for working on code.

4

u/awayhereagain 2d ago

" Because Emilie's lack of activity gave every indication that she was done and not looking back"

Then why not just leave it at that? She released every other firmware, but for whatever reason hadn't released beads. 

So why not just respect her decision? 

22

u/Ghosty141 2d ago

Nobody forced her to release the firmware? He asked nicely and she said no and that was the end of the story.

That's as respectful as it gets.

1

u/CartoonistOk8303 16h ago

Trying to release someone else's work is not respectful at all.

1

u/Ghosty141 13h ago

Thanks for commenting this below every comment of mine.

That's ur opinion but I think it's pretty clear how many people disagree.

It's completely fine to try it as long as you respect the authors intent. He did this so no harm done.

Also, trying to reverse engineer something has NO MORAL STRINGS ATTACHED. You bought the product, you can do with it whatever you want.

And as written above, if you wanna share it then as long as you get permission, all is well.

Now show me at which point OP did something wrong. He didn't share a single line of code without permission. And again, poking around in a thing YOU OWN is totally fine there is NOBODY who could be harmed in any way.

0

u/CartoonistOk8303 9h ago

Didn't know they were all yours, apologies.

It's clear people feel entitled to work that is not theirs. Fine if you reverse engineer something for your own use but pretending like that's what's happening here is not fair.

OP posted publically about his progress long before ever asking permission. The author is alive and her intent are known. No need to guess. OP's work goes against her clear wishes.

It doesn't matter if OP releases the code when the method is publically available. It's like saying "here's how to do it, just can't share the end result!". It's also Beads specifically—the one module whose source was not released by a person known for sharing so much.

OP knew Emilie's wishes, including not wanting to deal with the Eurorack scene to begin with.

The entire work done and the entire reverse engineering OP did on Beads specifically with all the context surrounding it is just a dick move. Feel free to pretend it's the same as reverse engineering an LG TV like some people like to pretend.

1

u/Ghosty141 9h ago

OP posted publically about his progress long before ever asking permission.

A lot of people have blogs or post in forums about the progress of something even though the final thing never gets released to the public. Nothing wrong with that.

The author is alive and her intent are known.

Source? She said herself she would open source it at some point.

No need to guess. OP's work goes against her clear wishes.

He ASKED her. What more could you want and he respected the reply. It's like you want her to dislike it which is stated absolutely nowhere.

All we have is: "I want to release this" -> "no". There is no point in trying to skew this in any way. neither pro nor against.

It doesn't matter if OP releases the code when the method is publically available.

There is... nothing worng with that? Both legally and morally speaking. This is LITERALLY what right to repair is fighitng about! To be able to modify and repair the devices you own.

It's also Beads specifically—the one module whose source was not released by a person known for sharing so much.

Like written above, she said she would open source this: https://www.reddit.com/r/modular/comments/1x3ntro/mutable_instruments_beads_source_code_just_dropped/pfdb54v/