7 Feb
2013
7 Feb
'13
6:16 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Louis Gorenfeld
<louis.gorenfeld(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
those of us using the GPL generally do so for fairly clear reasons. we're
not likely to throw it away just because ... steinberg.
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?
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.