Jan Depner wrote: > 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. > 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@xxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
