linuxaudio.org

On 07/02/2011 10:34 PM, James Stone wrote:

quoted text
>> Native VST support is a bane. It will drag along the VST license

>> troubles indefinitely. In my opinion every work done for native VST is

>> work lost for LV2, and it's not like there are a lot of developers

>> around.

>> At one point native VST might have seemed attractive (VST but more

>> stable than non-native, what else is the point of it?), but this

>> must have been the time before LV2. DSSI and especially ladspa might

>> have been limited in one way or another, but LV2 is potentially superior

>> to VST and while there's certainly much that can be done, I doubt that

>> it really lacks behind in capabilities even now.

>> So in my opinion native VST should be forgotten about as fast as

>> possible.

>>

> I wonder if commercial plugin manufacturers think LV2 (if they know of

> it) is too much of a risk from submarine patents and the like: if they

> license VST, they can stand behind Steinberg in the case of any legal

> action, whereas if they implement their plugins in LV2, they have to

> stand on their own??

>

> Not sure how much basis in fact this line of thinking has, but I

> wouldn't be surprised if it is behind some companies seeming

> reluctance to embrace LV2.. On the other hand it could just be

> laziness and inertia - I imagine if the plugin is already written for

> VST in windows, it is considerably less work to port the VST to linux

> as native VST rather than recode it for LV2.

The best thing is to focus on the part you are able to control best.

That means in this case, making LV2 (on Linux) as good as possible first.

Regards,

\r

_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-user mailing list

Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org

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