[LAU] VST and legal issues

Rui Nuno Capela rncbc at rncbc.org
Sun Nov 23 13:32:44 EST 2008


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 :(
-- 
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc at rncbc.org



More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list