linuxaudio.org

On 07/02/13 20:04, Paul Davis wrote:

quoted text
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Simon Wise  wrote:

>

>>

>> In this case it is clearly the intention of Steinberg not to allow FLOSS

>> implementations,

>

>

> not true. or put even more clearly, it was *not* Steinberg's intention to

> forbid FLOSS plugins or hosts.

>

very interesting ... so the SDK license clause was trying to achieve something else?
I'm just reading the license, I don't have any other contact or means to know

their intention, so I'm very ready to believe they had other reasons but it

certainly reads as if they expect any host to get a license from them, and as

far as I am aware those licenses are only available with payment to them. That

would seem to exclude FLOSS distribution?
Again I have not asked them for a license to distribute something under a FLOSS

license, so I do not know that it would be rejected. I am just assuming that

since many serious FLOSS projects will not distribute binary versions with VST

complied in that Steinberg did not allow this.
Simon

_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-user mailing list

Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org

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