KVR Audio

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:24 pm

It does because you can't have any of those freedoms for the VST binary due to the limitations of the license for the files in VSTSDK. (Note that currently nobody can download a legal licensed copy of VSTSDK from anywhere. It is completely unavailable.)

It isn't defensible. It's identical to if I took 100% of my own code closed-source and compiled it along with GPL code in a binary. I could claim my own code is a "system library" in exactly the same way you're attempting to claim that for the files in VSTSDK. This would defeat the GPL.

It's absolutely ridiculous and I'm sorry but you're completely wrong.

fmr · Post by **fmr** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:39 pm

aciddose wrote:It does because you can't have any of those freedoms for the VST binary due to the limitations of the license for the files in VSTSDK. (Note that currently nobody can download a legal licensed copy of VSTSDK from anywhere. It is completely unavailable.).

As I see it, the only part that could argue anything about this is Steinberg (which are the owners of the VST SDK. And quite frankly, I'm not seeing Steinberg coming after anyone if they compile any GPL sources with their VST SDK. Regarding 2Dat and the sources of OB-Xd, I don't see him coming after anyone either, even if the person distributes the code WITHOUT the VST SDK. The spirit of the GPL license he chose is respcted.

So, this is just a sterile discussion about a technicality which, although may be right from a strictly legal POV, has no influence whatsoever, in practical terms, to the aim of what is intended to be done. Just my opinion. If the parts involved have nothing to object, any third party have nothing to do at that respect. It's not their business. No need to paint apocalyptical scenarios upon a really simple thing, where noone is actually harming anyone, and everyone is acting in good faith.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:48 pm

It's about the JUCE license and the license under which all contributors provided their code.

You need to respect the licenses. Why are you telling everyone "there is no reason to respect the licenses because I don't see anyone being sued" ?

You should just leave the legal details to the actual programmers to whom it matters, and stop talking a bunch of BS.

What I disagree with is the posts claiming "it shouldn't matter" or "it's fine with the GPL" because no, technically it is not fine and it does matter. If the author of JUCE expected to be paid $1000 in this case, he (or they) deserve their $1000. If not, I'm sure they wouldn't mind being asked and might say "you can distribute JUCE plug-ins built with the VSTSDK and still meet the GPL requirement". This would be explicit authorization.

.jon · Post by **.jon** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:07 pm

Nobody else besides DiscoDSP needs to worry about the source code licence for Obxd at the moment, make another thread for general GPL chat if you really need to babble over it endlessly.

Lesha · Post by **Lesha** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:13 pm

.jon wrote:Nobody else besides DiscoDSP needs to worry about the source code licence for Obxd at the moment, make another thread for general GPL chat if you really need to babble over it endlessly.

+1

1wob2many · Post by **1wob2many** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:16 pm

.jon wrote:Nobody else besides DiscoDSP needs to worry about the source code licence for Obxd at the moment, make another thread for general GPL chat if you really need to babble over it endlessly.

+1

Anybody looking for information on Obdx is going to give up in despair.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:17 pm

I would have been happy with a one-liner if people didn't continuously disregard the facts and disrespect the rights they've been granted as a privilege. If anyone wants to disagree with the facts I've talked about I'll reply to their posts.

Rappo Clappo · Post by **Rappo Clappo** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:18 pm

Hmm.. so you can't download VST SDK? I am not going to click but..

http://www.steinberg.net/en/company/developers.html

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:21 pm

aciddose wrote:I would have been happy with a one-liner if people didn't continuously disregard the facts and disrespect the rights they've been granted as a privilege. If anyone wants to disagree with the facts I've talked about I'll reply to their posts.

Yeah, i mean, what would this world come up to, if anyone could disagree with the facts we're all talking day by day.

That's also the problem i have with internet forums, or people in general. Sometimes they just disagree with what i said. Unjust world.

BTW, i have no idea who is right or wrong here. I just find it hilarious that a license which should grant freedom in software leads to such BS discussions, and such restrictive use of the code of the licensed software.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:23 pm

I don't mind when people disagree. To be honest I'm almost convinced I know absolutely nothing, it's only due to the resulting paradox that I question the truth of that. I could always be wrong and I'm open to hear any sort of argument.

I'm sorry to anyone who gets their panties in a knot having to read posts on a forum that they disagree with or don't care about. It's really a case of "if you don't want to see it, stop staring at it."

chk071 wrote: BTW, i have no idea who is right or wrong here. I just find it hilarious that a license which should grant freedom in software leads to such BS discussions, and such restrictive use of the code of the licensed software.

Well, people tend to blame the GPL in these cases but in reality it's the license they offered VSTSDK under which is the source of the problem. Our only solution is to either not create VST plug-ins, or have these ridiculous restrictions.

The GPL is definitely about real freedom. The VSTSDK's license is about "you're free to not use the VSTSDK".

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:37 pm

Well... freedom is quite a complicated thing then.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:45 pm

GPL grants specific rights (distribution of original or derivatives) so long as you take it upon yourself to pass those rights on to anyone to which you distribute the result.

So its terms grant rights and make those rights permanent and equal for everyone rather than anyone in particular. It limits your freedom to limit the freedom of others. Sort of like how laws against murder limit your right to live your life freely taking the life of others.

See: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html

cucio · Post by **cucio** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:08 pm

I don't understand the point about not being able to download the VST SDK legally.

aciddose wrote: It isn't defensible. It's identical to if I took 100% of my own code closed-source and compiled it along with GPL code in a binary. I could claim my own code is a "system library" in exactly the same way you're attempting to claim that for the files in VSTSDK. This would defeat the GPL.

It's absolutely ridiculous and I'm sorry but you're completely wrong.

It seems to me there is an important difference between an operating-system-agnostic and vendor-agnostic public interface specification and any random piece of software. I think a reasonable case could be made in court in the unlikely case that someone had the motivation and resources to do so, based precisely on the similarities with AU and DX. And I'd be grateful if you kept the debate respectful and intelligent, even if you disagree.

Again I don't see how you would lose any of the freedoms in any significant way. Let's take an hypothetical Obxd binary release built from 2Dat's github repo, bundled with a BUILD.txt file detailing how to replicate the build process:

- You can use it for any purpose.
- You can change it to suit your needs if you follow the build instructions and then hack the code.
- You can share the software by redistributing the bundled file.
- You can share the changes you make (to the plugin, not to the VST SDK, which is not what we are interested in) by forking 2Dat's repo in github.

How any of this would be against any of the involved parties rights and licenses?

Regarding JUCE's $1000, I'll quote Mr. Storer himself:

But as I’ve said many times on the forum and elsewhere, we actively want people to be developing open-source plugins with JUCE so obviously would never treat people who add the VSTSDK to their project as being in breach. (I should probably mention that our upcoming new licensing model will provide an official route around this issue)

But I agree this has gone for too long in this thread, so I'll shut it now. It is not that I find the topic personally too interesting or relevant, I just felt like hashing it a bit. Apologies for the noise.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 4:24 pm

cucio wrote:I don't understand the point about not being able to download the VST SDK legally.

There isn't much to understand here, they simply do not distribute it anymore. They stopped soon after the introduction of VST3 where they removed the 2.4 SDK (used by JUCE in this case, although it may also use VST3 you can't compile the 2.4 plug-in binary with that.)

VST3 previously included VST2 within it, this was removed a few years ago with an announcement similar to "VST2 is now completely discontinued and we will no longer provide the 2.4 SDK".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Studio_Technology

Wikipedia wrote:In September, 2013, Steinberg discontinued maintenance of the VST 2 SDK. In December, Steinberg stopped distributing the SDK.[7] The higher versions are continued.

VSTSDK License wrote: 2. The Licensee has no permission to sell, licence, give-away and/or distribute the VST PlugIn Interface technology or parts of it in anyway, on any medium, including the Internet, to any other person, including sub-licensors of the Licensee or companies where the Licensee has any involvement.

You can easily find the SDK files online via a google search but you can't get them from an authorized source as far as I'm aware.

The GPL is designed to prevent this "nonavailability via obsolescence" scenario from occurring by ensuring everyone has the right to distribute the source-code forever.

Experiencing these situations back in the 80s and 90s is what inspired Richard Stallman to begin this whole movement.

These days, we're saved by the countless internet pirates who distribute just about everything (if you know where to look) without the slightest care for authorization.

Funkybot's Evil Twin · Sat Oct 22, 2016 4:41 pm

Guys, can you please create another thread in the appropriate forum (Everything Else? Hyde Park?) to discuss the licensing? It's been going on for several pages, and no one's changing anyone's mind (it sounds suspiciously like bickering at this point). Plus, the whole topic of GPL licenses in relation to blahblah SDK wouldn't be limited to just OB-XD, so there could definitely be some value in having a standalone thread to discuss the potential licensing pitfalls. Also, when you get to that new thread, if anyone involved in the conversation is an Intellectual Property attorney, then please state so.

I think the vast majority of folks clicking on this thread are interested in finding out what's up with OB-XD outside of any potential licensing questions. For instance, I'd like to know what, if anything, George plans to do to simplify the skinning support, and to see what else he may have in store, particularly around a built-in preset manager.

Thanks!

Obxd synthesizer