We think that better work flows around sub-compositions and comments on the canvas (whose backgrounds can be tinted 10 colors), both coming in Vuo 2.0, might mitigate the need for additional node tints. Would you like us to open your proposal for voting, or wait until you see how Vuo 2.0 might work for you?
Copy protection is not a big worry for me.
There will always be people who want something for nothing, especially VJ's who are starting out.
It would not be a massive issue if they were shared with a couple of friends or colleagues.
If the price is low enough, say $5 or less then you'd have to be a (insert derogatory term) not to pay for it.
I realise the look of Vuo 2.0 is probably locked down now. But I'm going to make one more plea for consideration to the idea that Vuo shift input ports to inside the node and put the value print outs after the port label, the exact same way Origami Studio does. Drawers and extremely long values like font names could still be hung of the node (or make it optional).
My reasons are twofold: aesthetics/ease of visually parsing the general composition and optimal use of screen "realestate" or a more functional use of space.
When double clicking node inputs (or tabbing through them) to edit the value the input could pop out on the left or on the right of the label. I also prefer the node corner radius used in Origami Studio, and more generally, it is more functional and more sophisticated and professional looking than Vuo 2.0. Just copy it as much as possible, it copied QC after all… it works.
With the initial release of FFGL and FxPlug exporting in Vuo 2.0, there will be no copy protection.
I wonder if it would be possible to set up the vuo comp (to be used as FxPlug) so that there would be a numeric (or alpha numeric) parameter (published from the comp) so it would render with a "watermark" of some kind until an acceptable "unlock code" was entered into that parameter (after which the watermark would be set to transparent etc...) and I guess ideally the comp would need to write the fact that it was licensed to disk and check for it on future instances etc. Such a basic layer of copy protection wouldn't be too hard for someone to crack if they really tried but it might help at least keep honest people honest and be better than nothing... but maybe if that were possible you'd already have done it : )