CLAP... thoughts?

[melomood]

I'm sitting here wondering how many would take the time and trouble to do it

[zvenx]

That was quick .

I am missing an element.. One needs a vst3 license to output vst3 plugins on juce right?
How is it different for Clap plug in wrapped as VST3?

thanks in advance.
rsp

There are different models.

Firstly, any developer who does open source CLAP plug-ins does not need any proprietary license to use this. Secondly, any developer who has a proprietary license can release closed source CLAP plug-ins as VST3 with this.

Thirdly, an open source project can create an adapter without the proprietary license which users can download to adapt their collection of CLAP plug-ins to VST3. The developers of CLAP plug-ins would not be involved in the process at all, hence do not need any proprietary license.

And then, any company with a proprietary license can create an an adapter which either lets users adapt their CLAP plug-ins to VST3, or which CLAP developers can resell as add-on to their plug-ins. Latter again works without the necessity of signing any proprietary license.


JUCE has nothing todo with this, but if JUCE supported CLAP, the implications to VST3 and the proprietary license are the same, if people did compile their JUCE for CLAP, but not VST3.

Thanks I think you answered.

If I am reading you correctly, a developer can't release clap based wrapped vst3 plugins that someone can simply install and use in their DAW without that developer not signing SB's vst3 license?

I only brought Juce up to better understand the licensing requirements, not for technical purposes.
rsp

[Urs]

I don't think I have been ambiguous...?

Why would a reseller of an adapter technology have to sign a license agreement? I'm fairly sure Thomann and Plugin Boutique don't need to sign any such thing when they sell VST3 plug-ins?

[trackbout]

I don't think he's asking about resellers, he's asking about plugin developers.

zvenx, think about it like this - if the file in your plugin folder ends with .vst3, whatever developer authored that file needs a VST3 license from Steinberg. That has nothing to do with CLAP, JUCE or anyone else in the world other than Steinberg.

Writing a plugin for CLAP and then using that as the basis to spit out a VST3 is a convenience for developers, that's all. It can have no effect on the developer's relationship with Steinberg.

[Urs]

Well, yes. A closed source .vst3 needs to be created by a developer who signs that license. It can however act as an adapter that presents 1, 7 or 3721 CLAP plug-ins to the host "as if they were VST3 plug-ins".

The same can happen with an open source .vst3 that was developed under the GPLv3 license, i.e. without any signature at all.

[koalaboy]

The same can happen with an open source .vst3 that was developed under the GPLv3 license, i.e. without any signature at all.

So, for example, a GPL VST3 plugin could, on launch, dynamically load a CLAP plugin that has the same name (or some mechanism) and route everything through that, I think is what you're saying.

Just as long as people remember that they wouldn't get (most of ?) the CLAP benefits that way, but certainly they could likely have a wider audience for their CLAP plugin.

[Urs]

Yes. But we're already discussing building the adapters so that all of them share the thread pool, so that multicore performance will also be much better with wrapped plug-ins than with native ones.

Not that this is done yet, but it makes one think...

[Urs]

Collaboration with a large group of brilliant minds is fun.

[koalaboy]

That's all of the CLAP-Oration

[trackbout]

There are two different scenarios being discussed which may be the source of confusion.

To remove some ambiguity let's say there is a virtual instrument plugin called YOLO, and a plugin that hosts other plugins called WOOT (similar to Blue Cat's Patchwork for example).

Scenario A - a user buys YOLO and loads a file called yolo.vst3 in their a DAW. Even though the developer may have originally authored that plugin for CLAP, and then used that as the basis to spit out a VST3, the developer of YOLO would need a license from Steinberg.

Scenario B - a user buys YOLO, but they also have WOOT. The user then loads WOOT in their DAW, and through the WOOT user interface loads a file yolo.clap, which they can do even though their DAW does not support CLAP, because WOOT makes CLAP plugins look like VST3s to the DAW. In this scenario, the developer of YOLO would not need a license from Steinberg.

[zvenx]

I don't think I have been ambiguous...?

Why would a reseller of an adapter technology have to sign a license agreement? I'm fairly sure Thomann and Plugin Boutique don't need to sign any such thing when they sell VST3 plug-ins?

I think I am mis communicating.

Let us say I am a new developer of plugins.
I decide to do clap based plugins, can I release a clap wrapped vst3 plugin without signing a contract with SB?

has nothing to do with a reseller or Juce.
rsp

[zvenx]

I don't think he's asking about resellers, he's asking about plugin developers.

zvenx, think about it like this - if the file in your plugin folder ends with .vst3, whatever developer authored that file needs a VST3 license from Steinberg. That has nothing to do with CLAP, JUCE or anyone else in the world other than Steinberg.

Writing a plugin for CLAP and then using that as the basis to spit out a VST3 is a convenience for developers, that's all. It can have no effect on the developer's relationship with Steinberg.

yes...you got my question and answered it.. indeed as I suspected.
Thank you.
rsp

[zvenx]

There are two different scenarios being discussed which may be the source of confusion.

To remove some ambiguity let's say there is a virtual instrument plugin called YOLO, and a plugin that hosts other plugins called WOOT (similar to Blue Cat's Patchwork for example).

Scenario A - a user buys YOLO and loads a file called yolo.vst3 in their a DAW. Even though the developer may have originally authored that plugin for CLAP, and then used that as the basis to spit out a VST3, the developer of YOLO would need a license from Steinberg.

Scenario B - a user buys YOLO, but they also have WOOT. The user then loads WOOT in their DAW, and through the WOOT user interface loads a file yolo.clap, which they can do even though their DAW does not support CLAP, because WOOT makes CLAP plugins look like VST3s to the DAW. In this scenario, the developer of YOLO would not need a license from Steinberg.

Exactly this, was my question (and then some).

Thanks.
rsp

[Urs]

But that is not (entirely) true.

If WOOT.vst3 can preset YOLO.clap to the host as YOLO-as-one-plug-in-in-the-WOOT-bundle, then the maker of YOLO can become a reseller of WOOT.vst3, bundle it with YOLO.clap, install them together and never need a proprietary license, since they are a reseller now, not a developer. They have not seen or touched the VST3 SDK, so they do not need a license for it.

[trackbout]

Haha, I feel like I just read the script for Inception.

Anyway, didn't I say the developer of YOLO would not need a license form Steinberg if it was loaded through WOOT? Not sure what you're saying differently other than also making the developer of YOLO a reseller of WOOT.