On Sun, 2008-11-23 at 15:49 +0100, Pieter Palmers wrote:
> Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
> > 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.
>
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
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
