11 Apr
2005
11 Apr
'05
8:32 p.m.
On Monday 11 Apr 2005 23:19, Paul Davis wrote:
Ah. No point talking about it here then.
No, the licence situation is clear enough I think. It just isn't very
satisfactory. You can't legally link anything that uses the Steinberg
headers into a GPL application and distribute the results as a binary,
with or without source. dssi-vst is a plugin with very particular
licensing -- this legal situation is one reason it is a plugin in the
first place, instead of being something built-in to Rosegarden.
People from Steinberg have indicated on several occasions that they
would happily change the VST SDK licence to BSD or similar. (Well, you
know that, and probably more for all I know.) It just never seems to
have actually happened.
Chris
longer easy to
get working, it's apparently been superseded (has
anyone actually seen xfst? I haven't),
torben has done a couple of small test releases to people he
communicates with via IRC. and it's
never been properly licenced.
the license situation is never going to be clear until Steinberg
clean up their act.