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