Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
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.
Linux-audio-user mailing list