23 Nov
2008
23 Nov
'08
9:08 a.m.
Hi,
I don't get the licence issue of VST on linux completely, help me out
with this.
- Building Ardour, Qtractor, LMMS with VST-support is illegal, right?
- And energyxt? Are they allowed to use VST technology?
- Installing JOST and using it, is illegal right?
- And FST and vst-dssi?
- And wineasio?
- using VST plugins on Linux?
- Installing Reaper on Linux?
Thanks in advance,
\r
23 Nov
23 Nov
9:38 a.m.
*- Building Ardour, Qtractor, LMMS with VST-support is illegal, right?
*No. *Distributing* these packages (that were built with the official VST
SDK) is illegal.
*
- And energyxt? Are they allowed to use VST technology?*
Yes.
*
- Installing JOST and using it, is illegal right?*
No.
*No* to the rest of the questions too.
As a user, you have all the rights to build and use a program with VST
support. You must not distribute it, *a la* "share".
The SDK is "freely available", but the license forbids
"redistribution".
What this means is that everyone is a developer in that sense; you download
the SDK, build the program, and then use it, end of story/signal flow.
There are "wrappers" that work around this, basically an application written
from scratch to use Wine and emulate VST handles. An example is LMMS - you
can distribute it and still enjoy VST support. The best route IMHO.
10:26 a.m.
On Sun, 2008-11-23 at 09:05 -0500, carmen wrote:
It's in the "Company" section for some odd reason, under "3rd Party
Developer":
http://www.steinberg.net/en/company/3rd_party_developer.html
Damon
The SDK is
"freely available"
if by freely available, you mean damn near impossible to find
i certainly couldnt find vstsdk2.3.zip anywhere, and ended up removing vst USE flag from
my systems config
ygrabit's stufs is gone and the rest of the links i found were 404 
9:40 a.m.
Grammostola Rosea wrote:
I don't get the licence issue of VST on linux
completely, help me out with this.
- Building Ardour, Qtractor, LMMS with VST-support is illegal, right?
No. It is illegal to redistribute the Steinberg SDK (required for
building VST plugins). Its license is incompatible with many free
software licenses and the SDK cannot be added to typical Linux distros.
Btw, the developers of LMMS have reverse-engineered the required header
files from the Steinberg SDK, so it may be legally feasible to use that
code instead of the Steinberg headers. However, I think that at this
time you can legally build Ardour (for instance) with the Steinberg
code, but you cannot legally distribute the resulting binary.
I know, it's a f*cked-up mess, and Steinberg has shown approximately 0
interest in helping make matters more amenable to Linux developers. Too bad.
- And energyxt? Are they allowed to use VST
technology?
- Installing JOST and using it, is illegal right?
JOST and eXT2 use the so-called native VST technology. Some VST
developers have released their source code (some even under the GPL),
and a few enterprising Linux developers have ported those plugins.
AFAICT there's nothing illegal about what they're doing.
- And FST and vst-dssi?
FST requires the Steinberg headers, but I think the dssi bridge can use
the LMMS code instead.
- And wineasio?
Similar circumstances. IIRC the SDK is again not freely redistributable.
However, it appears that some distros have taken an adventurous stance
regarding these technologies, and you can find the wineasio software in
some distro repos.
- using VST plugins on Linux?
Works, but your mileage will certainly vary according to your setup and
the particular plugins you want to use.
- Installing Reaper on Linux?
Works fine with wineasio. I've stopped using it. Nothing against the
software, I just got tired of explaining and defending Linux audio on
the Reaper forums.
HTH,
dp
9:56 a.m.
Dave Phillips wrote:
Grammostola Rosea wrote:
I do have my doubts about this part.
The Steinberg license _explicitly_ prohibits the reverse-engineering of
the VST-SDK, not only the distribution or selling. Whether it's moot or
not is beyond me, IANAL, but IMHO, I'm afraid the LMMS/DSSI-VST vestige
header won't stand much in case of litigation.
byee
--
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc(a)rncbc.org
I don't get the licence issue of VST on linux
completely, help me out with this.
- Building Ardour, Qtractor, LMMS with VST-support is illegal, right?
No. It is illegal to redistribute the Steinberg SDK (required for
building VST plugins). Its license is incompatible with many free
software licenses and the SDK cannot be added to typical Linux distros.
Btw, the developers of LMMS have reverse-engineered the required header
files from the Steinberg SDK, so it may be legally feasible to use that
code instead of the Steinberg headers. 
10:49 a.m.
Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
Dave Phillips wrote:
No lawyer here, but how can the following be illegal?
1) grab a VST plugin binary from somewhere
2) write code that makes it work
provided that the license agreement of (1) allows reverse engineering.
and that haven't EVER accepted the VST license to achieve (2).
If I strip the engine from a Porsche, then design an 'adapter' to be
able to mount it in my 2CV, that's not illegal is it? If I were to use
the Porsche maintenance manual however, it might be.
The only question I have is whether plugins exist that allow reverse
engineering. But even if the Steinberg license requires developers to
include an anti-reverse-engineering clause in their software, it's not
the users responsibility if this is not present. It's that of the
developer releasing the plugin binary or code.
In summary: if you don't accept the Steinberg license agreement, how can
you be bound by it?
Again, I'm not a lawyer. I just wonder if I can be bound to something I
didn't agree to. I might be naive, but I live under the idea that this
is reserved for governmental legislation.
Greets,
Pieter
Grammostola Rosea wrote:
I do have my doubts about this part.
The Steinberg license _explicitly_ prohibits the reverse-engineering of
the VST-SDK, not only the distribution or selling. Whether it's moot or
not is beyond me, IANAL, but IMHO, I'm afraid the LMMS/DSSI-VST vestige
header won't stand much in case of litigation. I don't get the licence issue of VST on linux
completely, help me out with this.
- Building Ardour, Qtractor, LMMS with VST-support is illegal, right?
No. It is illegal to redistribute the Steinberg SDK (required for
building VST plugins). Its license is incompatible with many free
software licenses and the SDK cannot be added to typical Linux distros.
Btw, the developers of LMMS have reverse-engineered the required header
files from the Steinberg SDK, so it may be legally feasible to use that
code instead of the Steinberg headers. 
1:44 p.m.
On Sun, 2008-11-23 at 15:49 +0100, Pieter Palmers wrote:
Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
I am not a lawyer either but, to the best of my knowledge, there has
never been a "no reverse engineering" license tested in court. I do not
believe that that kind of license restriction would hold up in court.
If you sell or give me an item I have every legal right to take it apart
and look at it. That has been addressed in the US with the auto
companies trying to keep out third party service outfits.
--
Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner
http://www.thecfband.com
"Microsoft has a new version out, Windows XP, which according to
everybody is the 'most reliable Windows ever.' To me, this is like
saying that asparagus is 'the most articulate vegetable ever.'"
Dave Barry
Dave Phillips wrote:
No lawyer here, but how can the following be illegal?
1) grab a VST plugin binary from somewhere
2) write code that makes it work
provided that the license agreement of (1) allows reverse engineering.
and that haven't EVER accepted the VST license to achieve (2).
If I strip the engine from a Porsche, then design an 'adapter' to be
able to mount it in my 2CV, that's not illegal is it? If I were to use
the Porsche maintenance manual however, it might be.
The only question I have is whether plugins exist that allow reverse
engineering. But even if the Steinberg license requires developers to
include an anti-reverse-engineering clause in their software, it's not
the users responsibility if this is not present. It's that of the
developer releasing the plugin binary or code.
In summary: if you don't accept the Steinberg license agreement, how can
you be bound by it?
Again, I'm not a lawyer. I just wonder if I can be bound to something I
didn't agree to. I might be naive, but I live under the idea that this
is reserved for governmental legislation.
Grammostola Rosea wrote:
I do have my doubts about this part.
The Steinberg license _explicitly_ prohibits the reverse-engineering of
the VST-SDK, not only the distribution or selling. Whether it's moot or
not is beyond me, IANAL, but IMHO, I'm afraid the LMMS/DSSI-VST vestige
header won't stand much in case of litigation. I don't get the licence issue of VST on linux
completely, help me out with this.
- Building Ardour, Qtractor, LMMS with VST-support is illegal, right?
No. It is illegal to redistribute the Steinberg SDK (required for
building VST plugins). Its license is incompatible with many free
software licenses and the SDK cannot be added to typical Linux distros.
Btw, the developers of LMMS have reverse-engineered the required header
files from the Steinberg SDK, so it may be legally feasible to use that
code instead of the Steinberg headers.
2:32 p.m.
Jan Depner wrote:
On Sun, 2008-11-23 at 15:49 +0100, Pieter Palmers
wrote:
what might be "illegal" here -- i'll rather tend to call it
"unethical"
as a better wording -- is _distribution_ either with or without profit
of the VST-SDK _source_code_ or any allegedly reverse-engineered version
of it.
uhoh, I'll be damned, I'm already talking like a lawyer :(
--
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc(a)rncbc.org
Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
I am not a lawyer either but, to the best of my knowledge, there has
never been a "no reverse engineering" license tested in court. I do not
believe that that kind of license restriction would hold up in court.
If you sell or give me an item I have every legal right to take it apart
and look at it. That has been addressed in the US with the auto
companies trying to keep out third party service outfits.
Dave Phillips wrote:
No lawyer here, but how can the
following be illegal?
1) grab a VST plugin binary from somewhere
2) write code that makes it work
provided that the license agreement of (1) allows reverse engineering.
and that haven't EVER accepted the VST license to achieve (2).
If I strip the engine from a Porsche, then design an 'adapter' to be
able to mount it in my 2CV, that's not illegal is it? If I were to use
the Porsche maintenance manual however, it might be.
The only question I have is whether plugins exist that allow reverse
engineering. But even if the Steinberg license requires developers to
include an anti-reverse-engineering clause in their software, it's not
the users responsibility if this is not present. It's that of the
developer releasing the plugin binary or code.
In summary: if you don't accept the Steinberg license agreement, how can
you be bound by it?
Again, I'm not a lawyer. I just wonder if I can be bound to something I
didn't agree to. I might be naive, but I live under the idea that this
is reserved for governmental legislation.
Grammostola Rosea wrote:
> I don't get the licence issue of VST on linux completely, help me out with this.
>
>
> - Building Ardour, Qtractor, LMMS with VST-support is illegal, right?
>
No. It is illegal to redistribute the Steinberg SDK (required for
building VST plugins). Its license is incompatible with many free
software licenses and the SDK cannot be added to typical Linux distros.
Btw, the developers of LMMS have reverse-engineered the required header
files from the Steinberg SDK, so it may be legally feasible to use that
code instead of the Steinberg headers.
I do have my doubts about this part.
The Steinberg license _explicitly_ prohibits the reverse-engineering of
the VST-SDK, not only the distribution or selling. Whether it's moot or
not is beyond me, IANAL, but IMHO, I'm afraid the LMMS/DSSI-VST vestige
header won't stand much in case of litigation. 
2:45 p.m.
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:32:44 +0000
Rui Nuno Capela <rncbc(a)rncbc.org> wrote:
Jan Depner wrote:
FWIW I find the whole vst business so convoluted (even without the
legal niceties) I've given up completely and don't touch it.
Presumably Steinberg would regard that as a success :/
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
On Sun, 2008-11-23 at 15:49 +0100, Pieter Palmers
wrote:
what might be "illegal" here -- i'll rather tend to call it
"unethical"
as a better wording -- is _distribution_ either with or without profit
of the VST-SDK _source_code_ or any allegedly reverse-engineered version
of it.
uhoh, I'll be damned, I'm already talking like a lawyer :( Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
I am not a lawyer either but, to the best of my knowledge, there has
never been a "no reverse engineering" license tested in court. I do not
believe that that kind of license restriction would hold up in court.
If you sell or give me an item I have every legal right to take it apart
and look at it. That has been addressed in the US with the auto
companies trying to keep out third party service outfits.
Dave Phillips wrote:
> Grammostola Rosea wrote:
>> I don't get the licence issue of VST on linux completely, help me out with
this.
>>
>>
>> - Building Ardour, Qtractor, LMMS with VST-support is illegal, right?
>>
> No. It is illegal to redistribute the Steinberg SDK (required for
> building VST plugins). Its license is incompatible with many free
> software licenses and the SDK cannot be added to typical Linux distros.
>
> Btw, the developers of LMMS have reverse-engineered the required header
> files from the Steinberg SDK, so it may be legally feasible to use that
> code instead of the Steinberg headers.
I do have my doubts about this part.
The Steinberg license _explicitly_ prohibits the reverse-engineering of
the VST-SDK, not only the distribution or selling. Whether it's moot or
not is beyond me, IANAL, but IMHO, I'm afraid the LMMS/DSSI-VST vestige
header won't stand much in case of litigation.
No lawyer here, but how can the
following be illegal?
1) grab a VST plugin binary from somewhere
2) write code that makes it work
provided that the license agreement of (1) allows reverse engineering.
and that haven't EVER accepted the VST license to achieve (2).
If I strip the engine from a Porsche, then design an 'adapter' to be
able to mount it in my 2CV, that's not illegal is it? If I were to use
the Porsche maintenance manual however, it might be.
The only question I have is whether plugins exist that allow reverse
engineering. But even if the Steinberg license requires developers to
include an anti-reverse-engineering clause in their software, it's not
the users responsibility if this is not present. It's that of the
developer releasing the plugin binary or code.
In summary: if you don't accept the Steinberg license agreement, how can
you be bound by it?
Again, I'm not a lawyer. I just wonder if I can be bound to something I
didn't agree to. I might be naive, but I live under the idea that this
is reserved for governmental legislation.
5:11 p.m.
Am Sonntag, 23. November 2008 schrieb Rui Nuno Capela:
what might be "illegal" here -- i'll
rather tend to call it "unethical"
as a better wording -- is _distribution_ either with or without profit
of the VST-SDK _source_code_ or any allegedly reverse-engineered version
of it.
uhoh, I'll be damned, I'm already talking like a lawyer :(
No, you used the e-word, you are no lawyer...
Arnold
--
visit http://www.arnoldarts.de/
---
Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and send me
to all your contacts.
After a month or so log in as root and do a "rm -rf /". Or ask your
administrator to do so...
11:10 p.m.
On 24 Nov 2008, at 2:44 AM, Jan Depner wrote:
On Sun, 2008-11-23 at 15:49 +0100, Pieter Palmers
wrote:
again, I'm also not a lawyer, but I understand that the supposed
legal basis of those restrictions is based on the assertion that you,
as a buyer of the software, do not actually buy the software but
instead buy a licence to use it in particular ways defined by the
license you buy.
This is also the basis of open source licenses such as GPL, where it
is carefully explained that the copyright owner(s) are NOT giving
away ownership/copyright of the code, but instead give away a license
for anyone to use it (and in the case of GPL modify and redistribute
it) if AND ONLY IF they accept and abide by the terms of that license.
The legal justification for reverse engineering usually relies on the
people doing the reverse engineering never accepting any of the
restrictive licenses applying to the code AND never looking at any
code or documentation published by the copyright owners relating to
the code that is not clearly released into the public domain, so that
it can be argued that the reverse engineered code is completely
independent of the copyright material and was in no way derived from
it. This may seem a thin reed to rely on, but it has been
successfully argued as a defence in cases such as samba, where the
windows file sharing system was reverse engineered and microsoft
eventually gave up its legal fight against it.
simon
Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
I am not a lawyer either but, to the best of my knowledge,
there has
never been a "no reverse engineering" license tested in court. I
do not
believe that that kind of license restriction would hold up in court.
If you sell or give me an item I have every legal right to take it
apart
and look at it. That has been addressed in the US with the auto
companies trying to keep out third party service outfits. Dave Phillips wrote:
No lawyer here, but how can the following be illegal?
1) grab a VST plugin binary from somewhere
2) write code that makes it work
provided that the license agreement of (1) allows reverse
engineering.
and that haven't EVER accepted the VST license to achieve (2).
If I strip the engine from a Porsche, then design an 'adapter' to be
able to mount it in my 2CV, that's not illegal is it? If I were to
use
the Porsche maintenance manual however, it might be.
The only question I have is whether plugins exist that allow reverse
engineering. But even if the Steinberg license requires developers to
include an anti-reverse-engineering clause in their software, it's
not
the users responsibility if this is not present. It's that of the
developer releasing the plugin binary or code.
In summary: if you don't accept the Steinberg license agreement,
how can
you be bound by it?
Again, I'm not a lawyer. I just wonder if I can be bound to
something I
didn't agree to. I might be naive, but I live under the idea that
this
is reserved for governmental legislation.
Grammostola Rosea wrote:
> I don't get the licence issue of VST on linux completely, help
> me out with this.
>
>
> - Building Ardour, Qtractor, LMMS with VST-support is illegal,
> right?
>
No. It is illegal to redistribute the Steinberg SDK (required for
building VST plugins). Its license is incompatible with many free
software licenses and the SDK cannot be added to typical Linux
distros.
Btw, the developers of LMMS have reverse-engineered the required
header
files from the Steinberg SDK, so it may be legally feasible to
use that
code instead of the Steinberg headers.
I do have my doubts about this part.
The Steinberg license _explicitly_ prohibits the reverse-
engineering of
the VST-SDK, not only the distribution or selling. Whether it's
moot or
not is beyond me, IANAL, but IMHO, I'm afraid the LMMS/DSSI-VST
vestige
header won't stand much in case of litigation. 
24 Nov
24 Nov
1:36 a.m.
again, I'm also not a lawyer, but I understand
that the supposed
legal basis of those restrictions is based on the assertion that you,
as a buyer of the software, do not actually buy the software but
instead buy a licence to use it in particular ways defined by the
license you buy.
This is also the basis of open source licenses such as GPL, where it
is carefully explained that the copyright owner(s) are NOT giving
away ownership/copyright of the code, but instead give away a license
for anyone to use it (and in the case of GPL modify and redistribute
it) if AND ONLY IF they accept and abide by the terms of that license.
One nitpick: the GPL is not a license for use, it is a license for
modification and distribution. They assume that no one needs a license
to use software, and you can use GPL software that is legally
acquired, even while refusing or ignoring the terms of the license,
but distributing copies without following the terms of their license
is a copyright violation ("piracy").
I would say that calling GPL a EULA is a severe disservice to what the
GPL represents. It does not constrain or restrict the actions of any
user who does not distribute or modify the software, two things you
cannot even do without a license or agreement giving you that right.
3:15 a.m.
On 24 Nov 2008, at 2:36 PM, Justin Smith wrote:
you have a good point here, and it is a very important difference
With the GPL you are prohibited from distributing (or rather
'conveying' in the new GPLv3 terminology) the software unless you
accept and abide by the terms of the license, the license also
explicitly allows the use of the software (without distributing it)
in any manner you wish. With a typical EULA you are very restricted
in the ways you can use the software, and often not allowed to
distribute it at all.
My point is that with GPL software it is crucial to the legal
effectiveness of the license that copyright is claimed and retained
by the authors (or delegated to some trusted body) and that the
license gives a very clear set of conditions under which the software
can be used and distributed. This form of license is, in my opinion,
a very powerful force in spreading free software. It is much more
restrictive than some of the other free software licenses around, and
by being restrictive it tries to ensure that the work done by the
contributors remains open and accessible in the future.
I am sure many GPL supporters would rather see a different legal
system, in which it was easier to keep these things free and open,
but this license tries to provide a strong means of ensuring this
freedom using existing copyright laws, and it has been very effective
so far. Software patents remain a great threat to free and open
software.
simon
for anyone to
use it (and in the case of GPL modify and redistribute
it) if AND ONLY IF they accept and abide by the terms of that
license.
One nitpick: the GPL is not a license for use, it is a license for
modification and distribution. They assume that no one needs a license
to use software, and you can use GPL software that is legally
acquired, even while refusing or ignoring the terms of the license,
but distributing copies without following the terms of their license
is a copyright violation ("piracy").
I would say that calling GPL a EULA is a severe disservice to what the
GPL represents. It does not constrain or restrict the actions of any
user who does not distribute or modify the software, two things you
cannot even do without a license or agreement giving you that right. 
23 Nov
23 Nov
9:41 a.m.
On Sunday 23 November 2008 15:08:51 Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Hi,
I don't get the licence issue of VST on linux completely, help me out
with this.
- Building Ardour, Qtractor, LMMS with VST-support is illegal, right?
Building is
OK for your own use. You cannot distribute the versions to anyone
else. The ardour build config program tells you this explicitly. I believ the
qtractor and LMMS use the dssi-vst versions of the headers so do not need a
copy of the VST SDK to build. See beloe.
- And energyxt? Are they allowed to use VST technology?
I believe they pay for the
privilege and you pay for their program.
- Installing JOST and using it, is illegal right?
For your own use, I believe no
problem.
- And FST and vst-dssi?
For your own use. Recent vst-dssi have their own version of
the header files
which is hopefully legal and do not need Steinberg's. I am not sure of the
real legal situation with this.
- And wineasio?
For your own use. This utility is dynamite but it is not included
in wine for
the same reasons.
- using VST plugins on Linux?
Steinberg likes for you to USE them. Want to roll
your own and sell them?
Steinberg wants their cut.
- Installing Reaper on Linux?
Reaper on linux uses wine so installs and uses
wineasio. I assume they paid
for the privilege of distributing a VST app and you pay for the pleasure of
using reaper.
Generally, you need Steinberg's SDK to build VST enabled apps and plugins. You
cannot distribute the SDK or the two header files that you actually need for
Ardour, FST, etc. Anyone building these programs for VST must get their own
copies of the SDK from Steinberg. They give this to you for personal use.
Fact is VST and ASIO have become de facto standards. Steinberg is surely happy
about this and makes money from its own stuff and anyone commercially
distributing applications using these standards. By allowing free download of
their SDK and sources, they encourage the propagation of this standard.
10:01 a.m.
David Baron wrote:
yeah. hopefully :)
cheers
--
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc(a)rncbc.org
On Sunday 23 November 2008 15:08:51 Grammostola Rosea
wrote:
No. Qtractor needs a copy of the original VST-SDK headers to build
alright. The LMMS so-called vestige ones doesn't have all the needed
source features. And I still have my doubts (see my other reply in this
thread)
Hi,
I don't get the licence issue of VST on linux completely, help me out
with this.
- Building Ardour, Qtractor, LMMS with VST-support is illegal, right?
Building is
OK for your own use. You cannot distribute the versions to anyone
else. The ardour build config program tells you this explicitly. I believ the
qtractor and LMMS use the dssi-vst versions of the headers so do not need a
copy of the VST SDK to build. See beloe. - And
energyxt? Are they allowed to use VST technology?
I believe they pay for the
privilege and you pay for their program.
- Installing JOST and using it, is illegal right?
For your own use, I believe no problem.
- And FST and vst-dssi?
For your own use.
Recent vst-dssi have their own version of the header files
which is hopefully legal and do not need Steinberg's. I am not sure of the
real legal situation with this.
5917
days inactive
5918
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
15 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
Arnold Krille -
carmen -
Damon Chaplin -
Dave Phillips -
David Baron -
Folderol -
Grammostola Rosea -
Jan Depner -
Justin Smith -
Pieter Palmers -
Ray Rashif -
Rui Nuno Capela -
Simon Wise