On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Louis Gorenfeld
<louis.gorenfeld@email-addr-hiddenwrote:
> > when you give someone else a GPL'ed application, you must be able (and
> > willing) to give them all the source code required to build the app
> > themselves. you cannot (legally) do that if the source includes the
> > steinberg VST SDK. ergo, you cannot distribute a binary that was built
> using
> > the VST SDK.
>
> Good point. It would prevent GPL'd plug-ins. But couldn't someone come
> up with a comparable license that would give the author rights but
> also allow them to not supply all of the code?
>
those of us using the GPL generally do so for fairly clear reasons. we're
not likely to throw it away just because ... steinberg.
> That's good news. What bits of code written for Windows are you
> thinking of, assuming someone is making a true port of their plug-in
> to Linux and not going through WINE?
>
that isn't the case people are talking about. as i've said before on this
thread, there are two entirely different things meant by "VST plugin
support":
(1) support for windows VST plugins
(2) support for native linux VST plugins
most people want the fomer since it lets them migrate some of the most
critical elements of a windows-based workflow. the second has no technical
or license issues, but doesn't interest people in the same way, since the
number of native linux VST plugins is fairly small.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Thu Feb 7 20:15:07 2013
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Feb 07 2013 - 20:15:07 EET