On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:32:44 +0000 Rui Nuno Capela <rncbc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 :( 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 _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
