KVR Audio

FigBug · Post by **FigBug** » Sat Dec 12, 2020 2:49 pm

Anybody else get contacted by Steinberg and told that supporting VST2 on Big Sur is a violation of the VST2 license agreement?

From the latest FabFilter newsletter:

Added native Apple Silicon support to the AU, VST and VST3 plug-ins on Mac.

So FabFilter is supporting VST2 on Big Sur. Any guesses how they are doing this? Ignoring or pushing back against Steinberg?

BlueprintInc · Post by **BlueprintInc** » Sat Dec 12, 2020 3:06 pm

No, at least not yet. FabFilter is also not the only one already supporting Apple Silicon.
I don't think I see the legal base for it. And tbh I actually would also not care if they're about to contact us.

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Sat Dec 12, 2020 3:21 pm

Out of interest (I'm not a developer): What exactly do they write, and how does it violate the VST2 license agreement?

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Sat Dec 12, 2020 3:26 pm

"Valid on macOS 9.x and 10.x, Windows 7, 8 and 10". Big Sur is macOS 11.

Wonder if they're gonna sue all plugin vendors that go ahead and do it anyways. That's for sure a way to spread some good will in these times.

BlueprintInc · Post by **BlueprintInc** » Sat Dec 12, 2020 3:33 pm

EvilDragon wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 3:26 pm "Valid on macOS 9.x and 10.x, Windows 7, 8 and 10". Big Sur is macOS 11.

Ours says

"Currently the following computer platforms are supported:
- Apple Macintosh Computers under the Mac OS9.x and Mac OS10.x,
- Windows 95/98/2000/XP, Windows 7, Windows 8 and Windows 10 (32 and 64bit)".

But it doesn't say anything aboug it being "illegal" for future/previous OS.

Further more our VST3 agreement in the same way discontinues WinXP or has not included the new MacOS but I don't think that means dropping support for those. Thin ice imo.

Maybe Arne who already chimed in when it was about VST3 issues can explain some things. The new Steinberg Forum unfortunately has no VST2 sub anymore...

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Sat Dec 12, 2020 3:44 pm

Mmh... so I guess it's about further pushing VST3, right? Understandable, but, as you say, if there's no explicit mentioning in the license of certain formats being "illegal" to use on any unsupported OS (why would it be?), then I wonder what the base of such a violation claim is.

mystran · Post by **mystran** » Sat Dec 12, 2020 6:20 pm

I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but my understanding is that at least in the EU program interoperability is protected (eg. see Directive 2009/24/EC) such that at best they could prevent you from using their SDK and force you to reimplement the same ABI.

Markus Krause · Post by **Markus Krause** » Sun Dec 13, 2020 3:29 pm

EvilDragon wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 3:26 pm "Valid on macOS 9.x and 10.x, Windows 7, 8 and 10". Big Sur is macOS 11.

Wonder if they're gonna sue all plugin vendors that go ahead and do it anyways. That's for sure a way to spread some good will in these times.

I checked out my old VST 2 contract. It says:
"... currently the following computers platforms are supported (by the SDK):
- Apple Macintosh Computers under Mac OS9.x and Mac OS10.x
..."

I can not confirm the words 'valid' or 'becomes invalid' or that the License Agreement would expire at some date.
By the way this would affect VST 3.6 also. There is also no mentioning of Mac OS 11 in the contract.

Apart from this I do not think that it would be a smart move from Steinberg to sue small developers or prevent them to release updates for MacOS 11. This would result in a huge shitstorm and a loss in market-share for Steinberg. The following scenario will happen then:

1) Steinberg sues small devs because they still support MacOS 11 in updates for old products
2) Many devs will be angry against Steinberg and quite a few of them will start rants
3) Many devs will tell their customers that they are not longer allowed to give them updates, because Steinberg threatens them to be sued
4) A gigantic number of plugin-users users will be angry against Steinberg
5) A huge shistorm will follow. Steinberg would get a bad reputation. As a result many customers will move to non-Steinberg products
6) Devs will stop to release VST 2 updates on Mac, but further continue to distribute updates for the AU versions with MacOS 11 support. As a result VST gets less popular on MacOS. Steinberg will loose market-share on Mac

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Sun Dec 13, 2020 4:58 pm

FigBug wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 2:49 pm Anybody else get contacted by Steinberg and told that supporting VST2 on Big Sur is a violation of the VST2 license agreement?

What does the letter say, exactly?

Youlean · Post by **Youlean** » Wed Dec 16, 2020 2:13 pm

Here you go:

image0.jpg

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Wed Dec 16, 2020 2:43 pm

So?

I still would love to know if anyone actually got contacted - like the OP suggests -, and on what legal grounds.

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Wed Dec 16, 2020 2:46 pm

So that just says "supported". It doesn't say that it's not allowed to use it on any other platform explicitly... Really shaky ground there.

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Wed Dec 16, 2020 2:52 pm

EvilDragon wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 2:46 pm So that just says "supported". It doesn't say that it's not allowed to use it on any other platform explicitly... Really shaky ground there.

Exactly. Which is why I highly doubt that Steinberg sent any letters to anyone.

To be precise, if one builds for 10.9 and it happens to run in 11.1, what are we supposed to do about that? Tell our users not to use it on Big Sur?

Dozius · Post by **Dozius** » Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:18 pm

If the wording of the agreement was enforceable as stated this would also mean all Linux VSTs are illegal, which would be ridiculous. This seems like wild speculation. I doubt Steinberg has sent any of these rumoured letters.

Youlean · Post by **Youlean** » Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:52 pm

Yep, this shouldn't be an issue. They didn't state that Windows Vista or Windows Me are supported too.

VST2 & Big Sur