Michael Bohle wrote: It's a matter of mindset. If you don't know that you, as an end-user, actually have rights (re: software) then you won't know or care that most commercial licenses work to further restrict any rights you have *as a user*. The Steinberg SDK can be made GPL-compliant with a few words from Steinberg (or whoever owns them these days), but getting the right person to issue the say-so is non-trivial. Do let us know if you know who to contact. ;-) Which you can do, with FST and DSSI (and now JOST). I'm not sure I completely follow your statements re: ideology, but I think I know what you mean. It's easy to turn your argument on its head and say that with closed-source ideals I can't make a single note on a computer. In the end, neither of us have said anything of real issue. I do not fear the introduction of closed-source plugins or programs for Linux. I also can not trivialize the need for compatible licensing conditions. It is exactly the Steinberg SDK that imposes the restrictions that you want to lay on the GPL. For the record, it's not the GPL or Linux developers that stand in the way of fully-functional VST support under Linux. To be fair, Steinberg's license was written for a closed-source world, but its restrictions are unnecessary even there. I believe Steinberg's lawyers simply considered a typical license for such an SDK and said, "Sure, let's go with that one". Unfortunately they never considered that something like Linux might enter the field. Relax. But understand that the developers here have devoted enormous time and energy to creating a world of truly free software. I'm sure someone can be perfectly happy and even creative while wearing chains. Me, I don't like wearing chains at all, and after not wearing chains for a while it will be difficult to convince me to put them on again, I suspect that more developers like Jorgen and Lucio will be attracted by open-source development, but they will likely not succeed in convincing the Linux development community that there's much to gain from working with closed-source software. Users, on the other hand, just want what works, so there may well be more acceptance on the users' side. Does this imply that there might be two development communities for Linux audio, one that works with closed-sources and one that does not ? I would not like to see that happen, but by their own choices the community of users will decide what floats and what sinks. I'm a musician, first and foremost. I've made music for years with Linux and without VSTs. Your statement reminds me of the RIAA flack who stated that his organization was necessary to insure the existence of music itself. I do agree that VST support will be necessary for the Win/Mac musicians who want to get out from under the burdens imposed by DRM, activation codes, copy-protection, and yes, even closed-source software itself (contradictory as that may seem). But it is not necessary for *musicians* per se. As you point out, it's really just the DSP any of us want, so if some way exists to get the processing without the processor itself, that's also fine by me. Best, dp