ARA is now Open Source

If only Ardour could be upgraded to GPLv3…

But GPLv3 will prevent Mixbus development?!
Why is there so many cluttering in FREE, LIBRE and OPEN source software? Annoying.

1 Like

I just checked one of the files in gtk2_ardour and the license is “…either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.”
You would have to check all of the files, but I would expect some consistency.
Is there a particular reason you want to use v3 instead of v2? It seems from my quick check you could distribute as v3 if you want (and if you are not distributing Ardour it doesn’t really affect you except to the extent it affects contributors or others who are redistributing).

How so?

1 Like

Based on the OP, can there be ARA integration without Ardour being GPLv3? I would have assumed Ardour devs would be keen to integrate to be competitive in DAWland. Everyone and their uncle seems to be using ARA stuff these days (Melodyne being the prime example)…

1 Like

Yes, Ardour’s source-code license will not need to be changed. The resulting binary is already GPLv3 though (has been since years due to other libs).


that would be so
A W E S O M E! :slight_smile:

Anyway licensing isn’t the issue. we discussed this previously.
The problem is that ARA makes extensive use of C++11, even in the abstract API.
Ardour is still C++98 and hence cannot currently use it as-is.


Chock one up to me being sleep deprived then, glad to be corrected.


What does ARA do again. I’m not familiar with is at all

If you couldn’t get anything out of the Wikipedia entry, ARA allows Melodyne and a few other complex plugins to work much more seamlessly within a DAW, vastly improving the workflow.

Most people think of Melodyne as a pitch-correction tool, but it’s much more than that: it’s a very sophisticated audio editor that allows you to change the position, length, pitch, vibrato, fade in/out, and even to some extent the timbre of individual notes. Works for vocals, percussion, and polyphonic instruments. The way it lays out notes in “blobs” on a piano-key scale is very intuitive, especially for musicians, and I really like viewing recordings this way. It can detect sibilants and other non-pitched sounds, allowing you to control all of them or treat individual ones differently; much more flexible (and more labor-intensive) than a de-esser. You can use it to create harmonies, change notes in chords, and on and on, essentially giving you similar manipulative controls over acoustic recordings that you have in MIDI. Whether we should exercise that level of control is another matter, but it’s there if you want/need it. See for examples of what you can do with vocals.

Melodyne also works in standalone mode, as well as a more primitive plug-in mode for non ARA-enabled DAWs.


To elaborate. Ardour’s source code is licensed in

[…] terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.

Note the “any later version”. That includes GPLv3.

As for the C++11 API issue. Come Ardour 7.0 that won’t be an issue anymore. It’s just that we can’t (easily) add it in 6.x. – see also “Tech details” at Last Call for Ardour 6.7

How was mixbus able to use ardour and not give mixbus source code lol

Mixbus is open source, what is not open source is the DSP used in Mixbus which is linked in at runtime much like a plugin would be.


Isn’t the DSP a significant part of what makes Mixbus what it is - at least from a user perspective? That seems a little contradictory to me.

I use Ardour with closed source OvertoneDSP plugins, why is Mixbus with closed source Harrison console emulation plugins different than that? Doesn’t seem like one is more contradictory than the other to me.

Significant but not everything. Workflow changes focused on stereo output and routing make a difference as well.

Other than that @ccaudle ’s response😁

Ok, agreed - I don’t necessarily see anything contradictory in using closed source plug-ins in an open source DAW, obviously - it comes down to user choice. Perhaps it was just the way the original statement was phrased that led to some ambiguity. Pretend I never mentioned it :slight_smile:

Very clever indeed. That’s how they did it:

Yea my statement probably wasn’t the best explanation, in part because I was typing on my phone in the car while waiting on something.