7 Feb
2013
7 Feb
'13
5:17 p.m.
On 07/02/13 20:50, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Neil C Smith wrote:
Sure :)
In terms of a big corporation, which Adobe is, there's a huge
difference between "No, no, no -- you can't do that under any
circumstances, or else" and "You can do that if your local law is fine
about that, but do talk to us first". It takes a generation of lawyers
(literally) to go from the previous to the current state of affairs.
Adobe is an interesting example in this context. Consider the PDF format.
I don't know the motivations behind their actions, though their intention to
make the protocol available for others to re-implement was very clear. This was
years before Steinberg introduced VST. Adobe certainly helped to make its own
protocol the almost ubiquitous choice by doing so (and it remained profitable
for them long term because of that ... they have sold many copies of the
editor). They were a lot smarter than Steinberg, they explicitly allowed
alternative implementations from the start while the protocol remained theirs.
This example was readily available for Steinberg to follow either originally or
later when VST was already established as one of the standards for plugins and
they considered possible options as Paul described in another post.
Simon
"To
the extent that local law grants You the right
So, complying with the law is now a sign of more liberal behaviour? :-)