7 Nov
2015
7 Nov
'15
9:25 p.m.
On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 20:16:40 +0100, Christopher Arndt wrote:
Am 07.11.2015 um 19:09 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
To cut a long story short, Steinberg isn't GNU. Steinberg might give
permission to use their headers, but distros that follow a strict GNU
policy will not include it to official repositories. You can't compare
Arch user repository PKGBUILDs that don't provide binaries, at best they
download a binary from upstream, with official repositories from a
GNU/Linux distro, that at best has got a non-free repository,
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html.
It's just strange that there still is an issue with Linuxsampler's GPL.
However, there are no issues with jack rack, but since carla is a
"eierlegende Wollmilchsau" (there is no good translation for this
idiom, it means "a pig that gives eggs, wool and milk") carla
on some distros might not give wool and/or milk and/or eggs.
We don't need to discuss the GPL and GNU now, we just should be aware
that carla from official distro repositories might be provided in
versions with different optional features or not at all. Users
interested in GNU politics and GNU/Linux policy distros should not get
used too much to all available options.
The approach to do several things, instead of one thing, already is
disputed, an exception are DAWs, but for a plugin host, let alone
non-audio user space, it has several drawbacks, even if there would be
no issues regarding licenses.
Regards,
Ralf
Regarding Caral's dependencies there might be
concerns regarding
Steinberg,
The Steinberg VST SDK can now be downloaded without creating an account
on their website by everyone.
This makes it possible for package systems, where the user downloads
the sources and compiles the package on the local system, e.g. Arch
AUR and (I think) portage, to include them.
There are still other issues with the VST SDK like the obligation to
enter into a license agreement with Steinberg, when you are
"publishing"* software, which uses the SDK, and to include the VST logo
and a copyright notice everywhere. But at least, as a developer or
packager, you do not violate the restriction to not re-distribute the
SDK in this case.
* Where it is unclear IMHO, whether a distributor is "publishing" a
software, by merely packaging it.