New Non Commercial Plugin Standard

[Guillaume Piolat]

VST3 is also the right license

To distribute a closed source VST3 you have to sign an time-limited agreement with Steinberg, just like VST2.

[pekbro]

@Guillaume Piolat,

Oh, a new plugin? nice!

sry... OT

[Guillaume Piolat]

Thanks for reminding me I shouldn't spent time arguing in the DSP forum ^^

[Eduur]

Again, LV2 is the only existing format with the right licence and the right feature set, and something tells me you would like some of the design decisions inside it. It's definately not welcoming at first, and then you begin to appreciate the thought that went into it.

OK, I've looked at it (did so before). I think I could understand it, if I spend a lot of time with it. So, if Reaper is going to support this natively, I might take the jump. But it is far from easy and far from what I'd like for a framework to present to new developers (there's no clue how to get this running under Windows) . For that matter, the documentation/developer's guide for VST3 is really good.

And maybe one more thing, I just downloaded the FruityPlug SDK once more. It is here: https://forum.image-line.com/viewtopic. ... 1597224023

It's just one zip file, with a website, examples and code in C and Delphi. Now that's what I call understandable. Unfortunately it's only Plugins, not Host and Windows only. No mention of license whatsoever...

O, and I forgot about Reaper's extention SDK (LGPL), also, just one zip and works under Visual Studio. (Not too much documentation though...).

[Daimonicon]

I think it's high time we ditched Steinberg. What say you? Let's put together an open source universal standard that is backwards compatible and works with all DAWs.

You can do this!

Well do it yourself.

[Skupje]

Are there libraries available to implement LV2 in a Windows DAW?

[EvilDragon]

Nope.

[Skupje]

Nope.

That could help the implementation if it was plug and play. Don't think the Linux community really cares..

[Skupje]

Say you have one standard, "instrument" plugin that can double as effect.
If it's not a com server, you would simply have an entry point for a dll? So would you have to stick to port conventions like 8 ins and outs at first, and "240" ish data channels.. Having stuff like MIDI, samplerate and BPM placed in order?

For me it's fine using no semi dedicated UI and using a library instead. Or have a complete good UI for a change. So maybe its simplest to have parameter name: index(n) sent to a structure of some kind..

so it looks something like,
void ep (inputs[n], outputs[n], DAWparameters[n], data[n], strings[n]) "note [n] is fixed"
{
call to UI // running graphics loop from audio thread
call to DSP
}

Do you really need more to do a plugin?

[EvilDragon]

Nope.

That could help the implementation if it was plug and play. Don't think the Linux community really cares..

Nope they don't care, so lack of care goes the other way round, too.

[GRUMP]

You should expect rationally acting Consumers and face their simple Question (Benefit?) first.

[Skupje]

You should expect rationally acting Consumers and face their simple Question (Benefit?) first.

?

[wrl]

Are there libraries available to implement LV2 in a Windows DAW?

Yep: http://drobilla.net/software/lilv

"Lilv is a C library (with Python bindings) for simple use of LV2 plugins in applications, which includes utilities for investigating installed LV2 plugins."
"[...] is known to work on GNU/Linux, several BSD variants, Mac OS X, and Windows."

[Skupje]

Yep: http://drobilla.net/software/lilv

Hey cool, I want this

[DRMR]

Nope.

Maybe only respond if you actually have an answer to give?

As said by wrl there is a very decent cross platform, and permissively licensed, library for this.

Stop spreading lies.