Re: [LAU] VST and legal issues

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:32:44 +0000
Rui Nuno Capela <rncbc@email-addr-hidden> wrote:

> Jan Depner wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-11-23 at 15:49 +0100, Pieter Palmers wrote:
> >> Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
> >>> Dave Phillips wrote:
> >>>> Grammostola Rosea wrote:
> >>>>> I don't get the licence issue of VST on linux completely, help me out with this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Building Ardour, Qtractor, LMMS with VST-support is illegal, right?
> >>>>>
> >>>> No. It is illegal to redistribute the Steinberg SDK (required for
> >>>> building VST plugins). Its license is incompatible with many free
> >>>> software licenses and the SDK cannot be added to typical Linux distros.
> >>>>
> >>>> Btw, the developers of LMMS have reverse-engineered the required header
> >>>> files from the Steinberg SDK, so it may be legally feasible to use that
> >>>> code instead of the Steinberg headers.
> >>> I do have my doubts about this part.
> >>>
> >>> The Steinberg license _explicitly_ prohibits the reverse-engineering of
> >>> the VST-SDK, not only the distribution or selling. Whether it's moot or
> >>> not is beyond me, IANAL, but IMHO, I'm afraid the LMMS/DSSI-VST vestige
> >>> header won't stand much in case of litigation.
> >> No lawyer here, but how can the following be illegal?
> >>
> >> 1) grab a VST plugin binary from somewhere
> >> 2) write code that makes it work
> >>
> >> provided that the license agreement of (1) allows reverse engineering.
> >> and that haven't EVER accepted the VST license to achieve (2).
> >>
> >> If I strip the engine from a Porsche, then design an 'adapter' to be
> >> able to mount it in my 2CV, that's not illegal is it? If I were to use
> >> the Porsche maintenance manual however, it might be.
> >>
> >> The only question I have is whether plugins exist that allow reverse
> >> engineering. But even if the Steinberg license requires developers to
> >> include an anti-reverse-engineering clause in their software, it's not
> >> the users responsibility if this is not present. It's that of the
> >> developer releasing the plugin binary or code.
> >>
> >> In summary: if you don't accept the Steinberg license agreement, how can
> >> you be bound by it?
> >>
> >> Again, I'm not a lawyer. I just wonder if I can be bound to something I
> >> didn't agree to. I might be naive, but I live under the idea that this
> >> is reserved for governmental legislation.
> >>
> >
> > I am not a lawyer either but, to the best of my knowledge, there has
> > never been a "no reverse engineering" license tested in court. I do not
> > believe that that kind of license restriction would hold up in court.
> > If you sell or give me an item I have every legal right to take it apart
> > and look at it. That has been addressed in the US with the auto
> > companies trying to keep out third party service outfits.
> >
>
> what might be "illegal" here -- i'll rather tend to call it "unethical"
> as a better wording -- is _distribution_ either with or without profit
> of the VST-SDK _source_code_ or any allegedly reverse-engineered version
> of it.
>
> uhoh, I'll be damned, I'm already talking like a lawyer :(

FWIW I find the whole vst business so convoluted (even without the
legal niceties) I've given up completely and don't touch it.

Presumably Steinberg would regard that as a success :/

-- 
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user