Subject: [linux-audio-dev] vst-plugins: comments
From: Paul Barton-Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: to maalis 02 2000 - 10:30:42 EST
first of all, i find it both useful and amazing the over on
vst-plugins, there is the same discussion going on over in/out ports,
a "run" and "runMix" call, buffer sharing etc. who would have guessed
it as this point in VST's life ? Anyone interested in a Linux plugin
API should be reading their discussions.
but more importantly, charlie steinberg responded to my argument for
allowing us to develop an "approved" (i.e. named) version of VST:
>>So, could I/we get any feedback from Steinberg on them agreeing to a
>>3d party implementation of the VST API, under the GPL ?
>
>your requests have led to some discussion here, pls give us some time
>to investigate. i'll let you know about the outcome as soon as there is
>some.
>charlie
So, maybe there is hope for some sanity around here. Being able to
support VST plugins doesn't mean, of course, that our plugin system
has to be limited in the same ways that VST is. But think how
compelling our case becomes if we (1) have an open source GPL
implementation of VST(2) and (2) sub-5ms latency!
Case for who ? Well, all the plugin developers who currently write
only for Windows/Mac plugin APIs ... I vastly prefer to have the
source code for the software I run, but if I have to pay $100 for a
really cool binary plugin, I would probably do it.
I would obviously hope to entice them with a better API as well.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : pe maalis 10 2000 - 07:23:28 EST