7 Feb
2013
7 Feb
'13
5:44 p.m.
Maybe I'm being stubborn, but either way, I don't see a problem. My
understanding is anyone can freely click through the license and
download the SDK to compile from source, and that binaries can be
freely distributed. Like I said, it's not 100%-no-strings-attached
free, but it's also not a bad alternative considering how extremely
well-supported the standard is.
I also want to point out that even though Steinberg could've taken the
2.4 SDK offline to force people to adopt 3.0 that they didn't. So I
think they do listen to the needs of users and developers at least to
some extent, which makes the adoption of something like this less
worrisome in my mind.
But, this is derailing the topic...
-Louis
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Devin Anderson
<surfacepatterns(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine
<alexandre.prokoudine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You don't need the VST SDK since 2009 or so.
Just use VeSTige.
I thought VeSTige only included an implementation of the host API, not
a full implementation of the VST SDK that would be required to build
VST plugins. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
--
Devin Anderson
surfacepatterns (at) gmail (dot) com
blog - http://surfacepatterns.blogspot.com/
midisnoop - http://midisnoop.googlecode.com/
psinsights - http://psinsights.googlecode.com/
synthclone - http://synthclone.googlecode.com/
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user