On Monday 26 Feb 2007 14:33, Paul Davis wrote:
My impression was that that was the goal.
The only substantial problem I have with this is the licensing one.
I didn't come to Linux to get away from Windows applications, but I have
always been glad to be rid of an environment in which the most usual
way to get hold of binaries is to copy them illegally. But here the
author and users of a proprietary application are pushing a plugin API
for which neither plugins nor hosts can legally be distributed under
the GPL as binaries -- that is, as useful plugins. Since most of the
plugins available for porting to Linux are only available because they
are GPL'd, the result is a set of plugins that will probably be
distributed as binaries but that most users will not be using
legitimately. I don't like that. But none of that is Jorgen's fault.
If the licensing problem could be solved, either through pressure on
Yamaha or by a clean-room reverse engineering effort, then practically
speaking the native VST effort would only have advantages. VST is an
ugly and badly documented API, but it's widely known and more complete
than any current Linux alternative. If existing GPL'd hosts could
provide native VST support, they could also in some cases provide
better Win32 VST support than they do now, using a LinVST-WinVST bridge
akin to dssi-vst (since there are various things in VST that can't be
done using dssi-vst). Hobbyists are thus encouraged to enter into the
various Linux development models, and the medium term net result for
users is good.
If the licensing problem can't be solved, then we have possibly the
first genuinely credible likelihood of users becoming locked in to
proprietary audio applications on Linux. Those of us who like to waste
our time on free software applications for which there's essentially no
commercial market can feel bitter, envious and/or resentful about this,
but it's a bad thing for users as well, and in the long term a very bad
thing for Linux because it erodes any reason to prefer Linux in the