linuxaudio.org

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:32:44 +0000

Rui Nuno Capela  wrote:
> Jan Depner wrote:

quoted text
> > 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@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user