Michael Bohle wrote:
This is partly a self made problem: to release VST aware software under GPL is
a kick against the users, against the musicans who want to use Linux as a all
in one OS solution...
To make the Steinberg VST-SDK licencing issues responsible for this, is not
the fine art of politics. The main problem is the restrictive GPL.
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. ;-)
Yes I hope in ten years LV2 for Linux is something like VST was in 2000.
But with opensource ideals we can't make a single note on a computer -
creating music did not need ideologys. The freedom is to have the choice to
use closed VST plugins on Linux.
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.
When i was started on linux, i thought "this is an open platform with creative
developers" now i start to realise that some devs using linux as a weapon
against the windmills named closed source.
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.
If audiolinux shall reach the musicans, VST must be integrated. Otherwise
audiolinux will always be a niche for some geeks like me.
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
