7 Feb
2013
7 Feb
'13
1:42 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Simon Wise <simonzwise(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 07/02/13 20:04, Paul Davis wrote:
i was in communication (both email and in person) with people at steinberg
in the early 2000's.
they had no particular antipathy to open source.
they had two problems:
(1) they did not want to see the VST spec diverge as a result of people
adding new features to the API
and distributing the result, and then over time more people
starting to use the extended version rather
than the one that steinberg controlled. hence: no redistribution
of the SDK.
(2) their lawyers. lots of people on this list under-estimate the
awareness that lawyers have for open
source issues. steinberg's (and later yamaha's too) simply didn't
really get the issues that open
source development had with their license terms, and as a result
were more than reluctant to modify
the license. in the end, inaction won out over action, as is
typically the case.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Simon
Wise<simonzwise(a)gmail.com> wrote:
very interesting ... so the SDK license clause was trying to achieve
something else?
I'm just reading the license, I don't have any other contact or means to
know their intention, so I'm very ready to believe they had other reasons
but it certainly reads as if they expect any host to get a license from
them, and as far as I am aware those licenses are only available with
payment to them. That would seem to exclude FLOSS distribution?
In this case it is clearly the intention of
Steinberg not to allow FLOSS
implementations,
not true. or put even more clearly, it was *not* Steinberg's intention to
forbid FLOSS plugins or hosts.