Lock Module from Editing or Alteration

[aronb]

Hi,

Is it possible to lock a module to prevent you from going into the module at all or going deeper into a module, say 1 level, 2 levels, or other modules etc. ? Kind of like the pre-made FlowStone modules.

What I want to do ultimately is sell a module (think apps, low cost, saves time in programming, etc.) and have the user be able to use it in FlowStone (the best programming system EVER !) so they can create there own stuff. All while keeping access to lower module levels... say 1 level from the top level but go no deeper... or go only 2 levels deep.

I want to be able to sell some of the modules I have made (2USD to say 10USD, again think app store) since they took me up to a few months to perfect for some of them. And the users would be able to use them in there own creations after that. I realize that the could just make a module with that module inside... and I haven't figured that out yet.

Hope that explains it enough,

Thanks for any and all comments, questions, and hopefully a solution !

Aron

[billv]

Part of the reasoning for implementing the DLL feature into FS was that so
guys could hide their code/algorithms ect ect, and still share or sell their work.
The DLL feature is probably your best bet ATM.
I don't think any Guru outside DSP Robotics would be able to pull it off, as the simple
act of going inside a module is a "Core" FS behavior.
It's a good idea though.
Ability to lock module's in FS would be a bonus for people like me who find
the DLL feature a bit too hard.

[Perfect Human Interface]

Part of the reasoning for implementing the DLL feature into FS was that so
guys could hide their code/algorithms ect ect, and still share or sell their work.

Is that true?
This had occurred to me as well: "what if you could sell individual components to Flowstone users?" Ultimately I decided that would be a really bad idea and terrible for Flowstone and its community if it were possible.

I'm not sure that DLL's do all that much to enable this kind of thing either...

[billv]

Yeh Im sure I read that somewhere, ' that it
enabled users to protect thier work'.
Not too sure about the selling part, could be wrong there
but does make sense to me.
Can i ask....How do you see the selling
part as a bad thing?

[Perfect Human Interface]

Flowstone thrives (well, as much as it does) on the community effort. I'm sure you can look in your own projects and your toolbox and realize how very different your experience with Flowstone would be if you didn't have any of the work freely shared by others. Now imagine if all of this sharing was replaced with people trying to make a buck on every little thing. Suddenly everyone's trying to clamp down ownership and prevent people from modifying their work, and people's tools get far less use than they otherwise would because people aren't willing to pony up. A pretty stark contrast to the current community.

Pretty much, the community aspect of Flowstone adds tremendous value, and commercializing that would diminish that value greatly.

The ability to protect your work can be a good thing in that it enables you to share things without sharing too much if you don't want to. For instance, I don't share my fancy knobs publicly because I don't want everyone running around with the same knobs, which would devalue my products. But of course that doesn't mean I'm not willing to share other things and give back a little to the community which has given me so much (for free). The fact that everyone shares so much (for free) makes me want to contribute (for free) as well!

[RJHollins]

I COULDN'T charge for MY contributions

but I still offer them freely

[billv]

Thanks P.H.I, i see what your saying more clearly now.

Now imagine if all of this sharing was replaced with people trying to make a buck on every little thing

I just didn't 'imagine' it like that.
i can't imagine every "tom, dick and harry" would have the nerve to try to make a quick buck.
I can only see "Brand new" prims created by "mega-guru's" who understand FS from A to Z.
But hey, you could be right. It might end up as one big "tin of worms".

[Nubeat7]

on the other hand there would be more "good" and finished stuff around, i mean most of the "community" modules are there because of development questions on the modules, but not everyone is willing to share modules which needed months of development,

imagine what modules you could get if selling high quality modules was culture here...
this is normal in the max/msp or syntedit communities which are great and big communities..
anyway nobody would buy simple modules which are maybe useful but nothing special, so it wouldn't affect the share for free thing

for example, i did a perfectly working midi CC learn system for GUI controllers, or a pianoroll ruby sequencer like you have it in cubase (its about 3000 lines of code and around 100h of developing time), i never will share these for free, you can buy it from me and then use it in your own (commercial) projects, thats it and thats normal,
it just would be stupid to give such things away for free,
where is your border? Till which amount of time or skills would you give things away for free and when do you want something for it?

to make things free is always good for the takers (who are always talking about how cool this "share everything like a hippie culture" is ) but rarely for the makers (who just do it because they like it)

[Perfect Human Interface]

I'll agree there are potential upsides; I presented the downsides, and in my opinion it would be a messy dynamic. If it were really easy to lock people out of your modules, even if you weren't asking for any money, it could be really frustrating and work against the open, modular nature of the program. If you look at any thread on here where someone's sharing some fancy new thing they made, chances are you'll find somebody posting an "I made it a little better!" iteration, or somebody found a bug of some sort that the author can't figure out, and someone else peeks inside and says "hey I think it's here!" Part of the fun is seeing how some project evolves over time throughout the thread, sometimes primarily from the work of the author, but sometimes it's like everyone gets involved. We're all working together to progress what's possible within the environment. That's what keeps Flowstone alive. To make it easy to lock people out would promote the "me" instead of the "us." You might have your elite gurus over there on one side with their wizardry and magic tricks while all the noobs sniff around in the dirt for scraps or a discarded bone, floundering in their ignorance. Ok, I'm being dramatic. But it would be unfortunate if someone less knowledgeable couldn't peek inside things to try to learn from them. Also, I'm sure most of the things you've dropped into your toolbox have probably been tweaked by yourself for various implementations. Imagine sending desperate emails to the author of that component key to your project who hasn't logged on since 2012, begging him/her to add the one output you need for it to be compatible with your design.

I'm going on and on here but my point really is just that there's too much that could go wrong. That said, I'm definitely not against the idea of people getting paid for their work. And of course it's already your legal right to claim all protections of copyrights for your work, including permissions/restrictions for use and/or requiring payment.

[RJHollins]

Couldn't a 'locked module' be considered in the same light as a 'factory' Primitives ?

These PRIMs perform discreet operations that we, the user, cannot open and peek inside.

Whether it would be a working concept, both fictionally and financially, would depend on multiple factors [if even possible]. If it was determined that 'external' file formats would be needed/used, then this could open the needed to have 'installers' for commercial products [unless an embedded technique was possible].

Just reacting to the conversation/idea ...