We will likely add exceptions to the kind of content that defines a project contributor, to exclude provision of graphics, audio, presets, text, etc. I think that will address the main point of contention here.
5 Likes
Thanks. To be honest I jumped when I read that. I never saw a clause like that on any kind of contract or license so far. I understand the changes you are going through, so that one might have slipped through
“likely” being before or after the 30 days we have to buy a perpetual for juce 7? Adding my voice to the cacophony, feels like unity 2.0
4 Likes
Please be patient with us making any changes. This will require input from our legal counsel, and it’s near the end of the working week.
I’m working on a project where a designer contributed a single SVG knob to the plugin binary. Does that mean the owning company has to pay $600 USD a year for that one knob?
3 Likes
I think this is just as serious as the content contributor situation.
Just to be 1000% sure - even if i have my own JUCE licence anyone i work for has to purchase another one for me to work for them?
3 Likes
Please also reconsider people working for multiple clients in small time chunks. Charging a multiple here for the very same person is also quite unreasonable.
5 Likes
just a footnote: a seat for the framework should apply to the framework only and not anything else. If an external programmer I hire will send me C++ code wrote without using JUCE, I shouldn’t pay the extra seat. That’s common sense.
13 Likes
The whole inflation thing in the UK is an absurd excuse. With what the music software market has become, despite worldwide inflation and price increases across all business sectors, music software costs less today than it did 15 years ago. Our new plugins made with JUCE cost the same as those from 15 years ago and yet today they sell less because the competition has increased dramatically. And then it’s not our fault if the UK has high inflation! Would it have been different if JUCE was based in a country with low inflation? Or what if there had been no Brexit? This will be remembered as the day JUCE died.
5 Likes
Ok, let’s say you fix the “content” issue (graphic designers, content makers, etc…) I still think asking a company to pay for an extra license for a contractor that already has a license is unreasonable.
I don’t mind the increase to the Pro tier, I will happily pay for the perpetual license (remember the mess to receive the subscription invoices? I don’t want to deal with that anymore).
But I hire 3-4 independent contractors to help with DSP and other code-related things, they all have a JUCE license already. I’m never going to pay 4 extra Pro licenses. It’s not happening.
I also ask ChatGPT for JUCE and non-JUCE code related questions, do I need an extra seat for that as well?
9 Likes
If you are only doing contracting work then there is no need for you to have your own JUCE 8 licence seat.
From JUCE 8 the “owner” of a product is responsible for licensing that product, rather than having that be the responsibility of the contractors.
Could there be a distinction if the contractor is working full time for that person or just a few hours weekly?
Although the previous version was much more consistent: The developer needs to be covered either by the client or by the contractor.
I understand it would be wrong if the client would continue selling after the contractor has left without a license, but that can be mended in another way…
1 Like
2024 is the year of the license agreement changes that make this industry implode. Steinberg first and now that 
A step back would be the most sound thing to do
8 Likes
We have a guy who brings us coffee and sandwiches, that adds very important content to our Juce projects. Do we need to buy an extra seat for him as well? 
8 Likes
Don’t forget Apple… if you’re on the App Store.
2 Likes
not yet. Love the brand, not their policies lol
I might be in the vaaaasssst minority here, but can you guys understand the problem they want to fix with this „owner“ licensing? @daniel if you develop a plugin in three months time, the owner releases it and may never ever change the source or whatever. Maybe give you a short bug list one week worth per year. And yet JUCE basically sees absolutely no money from that plugin, even though it majorly benefits from e.g. the cross platform compatibility and automatic adjustments for newer OS versions.
I think the JUCE team is well within their rights to address this issue and in the above case, the proposed solution is in my opinion very fair. Not charging per copy and offering a perpetual model is a hell of a lot more than what is the standard nowerdays.
I think the main pain point @t0m is the above example might not be the average case… which makes it the wrong fix for the problem.
7 Likes
It’s all a matter of finding the right balance. The previous licensing and pricing was perfect, why change? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
2 Likes
I think I read somewhere that LLM generated code is non copyrightable. So just have it paraphrase your entire codebase.
Are you serious? Do you work in this industry too?