7 Feb
2013
7 Feb
'13
1:20 p.m.
On 07/02/13 20:04, Paul Davis wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Simon
Wise<simonzwise(a)gmail.com> wrote:
very interesting ... so the SDK license clause was trying to achieve something else?
I'm just reading the license, I don't have any other contact or means to know
their intention, so I'm very ready to believe they had other reasons but it
certainly reads as if they expect any host to get a license from them, and as
far as I am aware those licenses are only available with payment to them. That
would seem to exclude FLOSS distribution?
Again I have not asked them for a license to distribute something under a FLOSS
license, so I do not know that it would be rejected. I am just assuming that
since many serious FLOSS projects will not distribute binary versions with VST
complied in that Steinberg did not allow this.
Simon
In this case it is clearly the intention of Steinberg not to allow FLOSS
implementations,
not true. or put even more clearly, it was *not* Steinberg's intention to
forbid FLOSS plugins or hosts.