Steinberg: No more VST2 Development

[aciddose]

I keep getting this wrong too: fine arts, not fair.

Yes that is what copyright/patents are supposed to be about, but that doesn't make the least bit of sense due to two things.

1. Indefinite extension of copyright
2. Software

Software is not fine art, it is one of the useful arts. A class of engineering like bridge building or rocket science. This means it can be heavily reused, and investing effort to "reinvent the wheel" rarely makes any real economic sense.

With a book you're given a copy. That lasts indefinitely, while copyright is supposed to have a limited term. So eventually like you said things will become free, and they are always open because that is a requirement! Publishing makes the work available!

With software you write a set of instructions in a language for a predictable machine "mechanical process" to build another thing, the binary code. By doing this the usefulness is split in two parts; One the executable, one the source-code.

You can learn from the executable but only via a very difficult process as the machine code is not designed to be human readable. You can learn from the source in most cases far more easily, although some "clever" programmers are able to write horrible code of course, but you can't actually execute it without first creating your own translation into machine code, in most cases.

Software manages to create a conflict through this division of usefulness into parts. The machine-code is only useful for half of its purpose and does not contribute significantly to progress. The wheel must be reinvented over and over again, unless you can manage to chop out a functioning wheel from the rest of the huge machinery that is an executable binary.

The source-code can be kept locked away, never to be made public and ensured to disintegrate. The binary however still receives full protection, all the benefits of copyright for the author and none of the benefits for society.

I've already "ported" my synthesizer to linux but it would remain closed source, and I can't make a release until everything is ready to be released. I'm hoping the next version (8) will be available as mac VST and linux VST in x64 and 32-bit as well as the existing windows versions. That may be pushed back to version 9 though.

[briandc]

I keep getting this wrong too: fine arts, not fair.

Yes that is what copyright/patents are supposed to be about, but that doesn't make the least bit of sense due to two things.

1. Indefinite extension of copyright
2. Software

Software is not fine art, it is one of the useful arts. A class of engineering like bridge building or rocket science. This means it can be heavily reused, and investing effort to "reinvent the wheel" rarely makes any real economic sense.

With a book you're given a copy. That lasts indefinitely, while copyright is supposed to have a limited term. So eventually like you said things will become free, and they are always open because that is a requirement! Publishing makes the work available!

With software you write a set of instructions in a language for a predictable machine "mechanical process" to build another thing, the binary code. By doing this the usefulness is split in two parts; One the executable, one the source-code.

You can learn from the executable but only via a very difficult process as the machine code is not designed to be human readable. You can learn from the source in most cases far more easily, although some "clever" programmers are able to write horrible code of course, but you can't actually execute it without first creating your own translation into machine code, in most cases.

Software manages to create a conflict through this division of usefulness into parts. The machine-code is only useful for half of its purpose and does not contribute significantly to progress. The wheel must be reinvented over and over again, unless you can manage to chop out a functioning wheel from the rest of the huge machinery that is an executable binary.

The source-code can be kept locked away, never to be made public and ensured to disintegrate. The binary however still receives full protection, all the benefits of copyright for the author and none of the benefits for society.

I've already "ported" my synthesizer to linux but it would remain closed source, and I can't make a release until everything is ready to be released. I'm hoping the next version (8) will be available as mac VST and linux VST in x64 and 32-bit as well as the existing windows versions. That may be pushed back to version 9 though.

Yes, in a certain sense (at least in the world of software) the copyright which is supposed to "protect" the software also inhibits new development. It's as though the thing that is supposed to be "protective" of creativity is the very thing that stifles it!

Music is I suppose a similar comparison to writing code. Someone comes up with a creative idea, what should he do? Try to keep it to himself, or share it with others? In the end, the idea is of course to share it with others. People don't make music just to enjoy it themselves. They like for others to enjoy it, too.

Well, I'm certain that the linux community would be greatly benefitted by a native-linux VST version of your synth. One developer asked to reach a certain financial donation level before he released his synth for free. I think he reached his goal in about a week.

Of course, it's not a "guarantee," but I know people like myself would be more than happy to make a donation to see it happen, since there is certainly time and effort put into it.

brian

[Gamma-UT]

Yes, in a certain sense (at least in the world of software) the copyright which is supposed to "protect" the software also inhibits new development. It's as though the thing that is supposed to be "protective" of creativity is the very thing that stifles it!

Really? In all cases? I guess it's why it's so good open-source/free-software doesn't rely on copyright law to enforce its terms.




Oh wait, it does.

[aciddose]

Really? In all cases? I guess it's why it's so good open-source/free-software doesn't rely on copyright law to enforce its terms.
Oh wait, it does.

You've missed the point though

The point is that yes, copyleft is the solution to this problem but it only works if people actually adopt it. "Free" and "open" don't work. BSD doesn't work. Licenses like BSD work only for the immediate content, but then when people use the software and benefit from this sharing without sharing themselves this benefit is abruptly chopped off.

Copyleft is a brilliant MAD-esque solution to the issue but that is the thing; It is only a temporary hack. It can't be relied upon to "solve the problem once and for all."

It also imposes a heavy cost on the developer which is obviously not compensated by the benefits in many cases.

This can only be fully solved by changes to copyright.

[Gamma-UT]

Really? In all cases? I guess it's why it's so good open-source/free-software doesn't rely on copyright law to enforce its terms.
Oh wait, it does.

You've missed the point though.

Um no. Those may be good points in a general sense. But my comment was simply pointing out that copyright isn't a blanket bad thing – it depends on how the creators of stuff use it as copyright law passes control over to them rather than anyone else. I just find it funny when open-source zealots bang on about copyright being teh evilz without realising what a good job Eben Moglen did with the existing legal framework.

[aciddose]

No, believe me you've totally missed the point by about a mile. Seems as if you're not understanding what was discussed.