KVR Audio

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:06 pm

xos wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 4:41 pm The GPL is quite clear that it cant be combined with a host or plugin that is closed source.

This is still false.

The copyright holder who places something under the GPL gets to decide what they can do with their own code, including mixing that with closed source.

As has already been proven, differences in interoperability between the plugin and host may or may not allow 'combining'. The FSF has opinions on that, but ultimately, for a mechanism designed to allow combining, the copyright holder is the one who gets to device.

And has already been proven, exemptions to this can be made by the copyright holder.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:11 pm

xos wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:06 pm Well make your compliant to the Free Software Foundation that you don't think they know what they are talking about.

Why would I complain to them when its you who doesnt know what they're talking about?

And what they have no idea what their GPL licences tries to enforce.

I think they do more than you do.

But GPL protected code doesnt automatically belong to the FSF. It belongs to the copyright holder, and they get to define exemptions and application. In this case, its very clear what Steinberg's intent is. And neither you, nor the FSF, have any say in that.

And that's before your ludicrous notion that someone who writes a host that supports plugins is intrinsically bound by any random license thought of by anyone who develops such a plugin.

xos · Post by **xos** » Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:14 pm

whyterabbyt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:01 pm
lobanov wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 4:19 pm
xos wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 3:42 pm Can we agree on that the host and the plugin is considered to be the same program as they call each others functions and share datastructures, according to their definition?
I'm not a lawyer but... We usually can use any proprietary DAW without GPL'd plugins and we can use GPL'd plugins without proprietery DAWs. Are they "the same program"? No. If we can't it's a violation of GPL' terms.

The main intention of GPL (as I understood it) is to ensure that any user is able to modify code, inspect it etc. and all changes in code are available for other people.
The VST API is the mechanism for communication between DAW and host. Its up to the copyright holder of the VST API to decide whether its use makes it 'one program' or not.

Its not up to the FSF, or any rando.

It's FSF that has made the GPL licences, so it's not just any random organisation. You clearly don't like the GPL licences and the Free Software Foundation. These licences is apparently not anything near that you like it to be. And you clearly don't like Richard Stallman either. Luckily there is less strict licences than GPL.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:14 pm

You go ahead and take Steinberg to court though. Let us know how that works for you.

xos · Post by **xos** » Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:21 pm

whyterabbyt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:11 pm
xos wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:06 pm Well make your compliant to the Free Software Foundation that you don't think they know what they are talking about.
Why would I complain to them when its you who doesnt know what they're talking about?

And what they have no idea what their GPL licences tries to enforce.
I think they do more than you do.

But GPL protected code doesnt automatically belong to the FSF. It belongs to the copyright holder, and they get to define exemptions and application. In this case, its very clear what Steinberg's intent is. And neither you, nor the FSF, have any say in that.

And that's before your ludicrous notion that someone who writes a host that supports plugins is intrinsically bound by any random license thought of by anyone who develops such a plugin.

Yes plugin and host is considered to be the same program...
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPlugins
And no a closed source host shall not use a GPL licenced plug...
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.ht ... GPLPlugins

Read and educate yourself...

When is a program and its plug-ins considered a single combined program? (#GPLPlugins)

It depends on how the main program invokes its plug-ins. If the main program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, and they establish intimate communication by sharing complex data structures, or shipping complex data structures back and forth, that can make them one single combined program. A main program that uses simple fork and exec to invoke plug-ins and does not establish intimate communication between them results in the plug-ins being a separate program.

If the main program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single combined program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. If the main program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the ‘main’ function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.

Using shared memory to communicate with complex data structures is pretty much equivalent to dynamic linking.
If I write a plug-in to use with a GPL-covered program, what requirements does that impose on the licenses I can use for distributing my plug-in? (#GPLAndPlugins)

Please see this question for determining when plug-ins and a main program are considered a single combined program and when they are considered separate works.

If the main program and the plugins are a single combined program then this means you must license the plug-in under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license and distribute it with source code in a GPL-compliant way. A main program that is separate from its plug-ins makes no requirements for the plug-ins.
Can I apply the GPL when writing a plug-in for a nonfree program? (#GPLPluginsInNF)

Please see this question for determining when plug-ins and a main program are considered a single combined program and when they are considered separate programs.

If they form a single combined program this means that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in with the nonfree main program would violate the GPL. However, you can resolve that legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's license, giving permission to link it with the nonfree main program.

See also the question I am writing free software that uses a nonfree library.
Can I release a nonfree program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in? (#NFUseGPLPlugins)

Please see this question for determining when plug-ins and a main program are considered a single combined program and when they are considered separate programs.

If they form a single combined program then the main program must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and the terms of the GPL must be followed when the main program is distributed for use with these plug-ins.

However, if they are separate works then the license of the plug-in makes no requirements about the main program.

See also the question I am writing free software that uses a nonfree library.
You have a GPLed program that I'd like to link with my code to build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program mean I have to GPL my program? (#LinkingWithGPL)

Not exactly. It means you must release your program under a license compatible with the GPL (more precisely, compatible with one or more GPL versions accepted by all the rest of the code in the combination that you link). The combination itself is then available under those GPL versions.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:27 pm

xos wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:14 pm It's FSF that has made the GPL licences, so it's not just any random organisation.

I didnt say 'random organisation' I said rando.

That would be you.

You clearly don't like the GPL licences and the Free Software Foundation.

That 'clearly' only exists in your head, kiddo.

After all, you're the one who said locking in things to GPL3 only, is not your cup of tea because you're not a communist, and you think that the GPL shouldnt stop you from using GPLd code in closed source.

Funny that, innit.

These licences is apparently not anything near that you like it to be.

No, they're exactly as they are, they're just not what you say that is.

And you clearly don't like Richard Stallman either.

Another 'clearly', that you pulled out your arse, eh?

Luckily there is less strict licences than GPL.

Luckily there are people who understand it better than you.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:29 pm

xos wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:21 pm Yes plugin and host is considered to be the same program...
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPlugins
And no a closed source host shall not use a GPL licenced plug...
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.ht ... GPLPlugins

no, not 'is'. 'may be'

Read and educate yourself...

You mean that exact same stuff I pointed you at a few posts back that you had clearly never seen before?

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:34 pm

Quote the part of the GPL where they state that anyone releasing host code has to work to the FSF definition of 'a single program' because someone wrote a GPL'd plugin for it, and I'll accept you even slightly understand the GPL.

Oberheim 8000 · Post by **Oberheim 8000** » Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:53 pm

xos wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 4:41 pm
Oberheim 8000 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 4:22 pm xos In my opinion it is related to only for program which uses dynamicaly linked "plugin" dll. For example, that means you write a program which use GUI (graphical user interface) library / framework as "plugin" dll. This can be considered as single combined program. If GUI library or framework is under GPL and you want release your program under closed source code, you can not use library or framework as dll under GPL.

I don't think it is related to use plugin (VST) GPL under closed source DAW.
The GPL is quite clear that it cant be combined with a host or plugin that is closed source. The GPL licences has the most hard interpretation of copyleft.

If you want to make a host or plugin and come around this, it has to use a less strict licence. And FSF has made such licences, and is called GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesse ... ic_License

LGPL allows dynamic loading of libraries and plugins, but the GPL does not.

Richard Stallman the bainchild of the GPL licence, won't use any software that is closed source. And he has gone to extended measures to ensure this is the default case. That's why the GPL licences is so strict to not be able to be combined with closed source.

Can I release a nonfree program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in? (#NFUseGPLPlugins)
...
However, if they are separate works then the license of the plug-in makes no requirements about the main program.

And I think it can be related to the same developer. That means one developer can make a program closed source and plugin as GPL. They are separate works (or products, to be more clear, in my opinion).

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:06 pm

Oberheim 8000 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:53 pm And I think it can be related to the same developer. That means one developer can make a program closed source and plugin as GPL. They are separate works (or products, to be more clear, in my opinion).

Bear in mind that the FSF are primarily focussed on promoting the GPL. They're kind of dogmatic about it, so when they deal with these things its often in terms of preventing mechanisms for embedding GPL code against the wishes of the copyright holder.

But the FSF FAQ does not include 'Can I release a nonfree program and then let people load plugins via my own API, some of which will be nonfree and some of which I will permit to be GPL-covered derivatives of my API' which is the use case actually being discussed.

Because that's actually not the same scenario as the question quoted, and that xos is relying on.

'Can I release a nonfree program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in?'

I imagine he's reading the latter as ''Can I release a nonfree program that's got the capability of loading GPL-covered plug-ins?' but they were quite specific in why they phrased it the way they did.

And the notion of 'combined' is still descriptive, not prescriptive; that's why its not in the GPL itself.
The FSF cannot dictate what a company must adhere to regarding their use of their own completely original code if they put it out under the GPL.
If its that company's copyright, they can do what they like with their own code, and they can certainly consider their own API to be a separation of host and plugin for the purpose of use of that API and the GPL. Its absolutely their right to define that, not the FSF's.

And they're certainly not beholden to any license for any plugin that leverages their API to be usable in their host.
Otherwise 'the writer of any host this plugin is loaded into shall pay the plugin developer a million dollars' would be the default plugin license, wouldnt it?

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:14 pm

Dont forget; the actual argument xos is making basically resolves to 'if the software you write can load a plugin via an API you wrote, then you are legally bound by the license terms of any and every plugin that anyone can write with your API'

xos · Post by **xos** » Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:24 pm

ChatGPT has the same interpretation

Apparently we cant trust a AI yet

Can a gpl2 plugin be used in a closed source application?

No, a GPL-2 licensed plugin cannot be used in a closed source application. The GPL-2 license requires that any software that incorporates GPL-2 licensed code must also be licensed under the GPL-2, which means that the source code must be made available to users and any modifications to the code must be released under the same license. Therefore, using a GPL-2 licensed plugin in a closed source application would be a violation of the GPL-2 license terms. If you want to use a GPL-2 licensed plugin in a closed source application, you would need to obtain a separate license from the plugin's author or create your own plugin with a compatible license.

---
Can a gpl3 plugin be used in a closed source application?

No, a GPL-3 licensed plugin cannot be used in a closed source application. Like the GPL-2 license, the GPL-3 license requires that any software that incorporates GPL-3 licensed code must also be licensed under the GPL-3, which means that the source code must be made available to users and any modifications to the code must be released under the same license. Therefore, using a GPL-3 licensed plugin in a closed source application would be a violation of the GPL-3 license terms.

However, there is one exception to this rule called the "GPL linking exception" or "Classpath exception," which allows for the use of GPL-3 licensed libraries or plugins in certain circumstances without requiring the entire application to be licensed under the GPL-3. This exception allows for the use of GPL-3 licensed code in a closed source application if the code is dynamically linked at runtime, rather than statically linked at compile time. However, this exception has certain conditions and limitations, and it is always recommended to consult with a legal expert to ensure compliance with the GPL-3 license terms.

---
Can a gpl2 dll be used in a closed source application?

No, a GPL-2 licensed DLL cannot be used in a closed source application. The GPL-2 license requires that any software that incorporates GPL-2 licensed code must also be licensed under the GPL-2, which means that the source code must be made available to users and any modifications to the code must be released under the same license. Therefore, using a GPL-2 licensed DLL in a closed source application would be a violation of the GPL-2 license terms. If you want to use a GPL-2 licensed DLL in a closed source application, you would need to obtain a separate license from the DLL's author or create your own DLL with a compatible license.

FigBug · Post by **FigBug** » Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:32 pm

It suddenly dawned on me that GPL licenced plugins may be illegal for usage in non open source audio hosts.

No, the GPL only applies to people redistributing software. It does not apply to end users. To use GPL software, you do not need to agree to the license. For example it is perfectly ok to get GPL software, modify it, keep those modifications secret, as long as you do not redistribute the software.

Closed source host developers do not redistribute any GPL code, so the GPL does not apply to them.

GPL plugin developers need to abide by the GPL for any libraries they use. But they do not distribute the host, so the host does not need to abide by the GPL.

The only case where the GPL could come in to effect is where a GPL host is distributed with closed source plugins or vice versa. I think Harrison Mix Bus is like this, it might be possible to argue that it and it's plugins are one program.

xos · Post by **xos** » Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:43 pm

FigBug wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:32 pm
It suddenly dawned on me that GPL licenced plugins may be illegal for usage in non open source audio hosts.
No, the GPL only applies to people redistributing software. It does not apply to end users. To use GPL software, you do not need to agree to the license. For example it is perfectly ok to get GPL software, modify it, keep those modifications secret, as long as you do not redistribute the software.

Closed source host developers do not redistribute any GPL code, so the GPL does not apply to them.

GPL plugin developers need to abide by the GPL for any libraries they use. But they do not distribute the host, so the host does not need to abide by the GPL.

The only case where the GPL could come in to effect is where a GPL host is distributed with closed source plugins or vice versa. I think Harrison Mix Bus is like this, it might be possible to argue that it and it's plugins are one program.

Yes I can agree to the effect of what you have written.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:44 pm

Dammit, Ive just realised what's going on.

I couldnt work out why someone who had made multiple comments hostile to the core notion of GPL only a few days ago should wind up on 'oh you clearly hate stallman and the FSF' especially when they so obviously didnt know about the FSF FAQ section on plugins.

But I'd been reading this thread as 'Steinberg are at fault' not a disguised version of 'GPL at fault' so I wasnt in that headspace.
I guess OP had no original intention of defending the FSF or Stallman or the GPL, only started doing so as ad hominem, because they got their misdirective premise rejected from the get-go.

OP has a bee in their bonnet about him not being able to use GPL'd code how he feels like it in closed source use, that's what this is about.
from only a fortnight ago:

I have seen FTS before, and is quite useless, since it uses the GPL3 licence that prohibits closed source plugs. I'm all for open source, but locking in things to GPL3 only, is not my cup of tea. I'm not a communist. The same goes for GPL2 that the vestige.h header uses.

The link to the header for VST3 is more understandable, as it's derived from Steinberg's GPL3 licensed source code. Mark though that it's dual licenced, so it's possible to use it in closed source plugins. And it was nice to see that it's possible to do, what he has done. So it's some kind of prof of concept. But if VST3 was GPL3 only, it would have been dead at arrival.

In the best of worlds, open source should be able to be used in closed source projects. And at least use a LGPL licence or preferable a zlib or MIT license or something permissible for use in closed source applications.

Illegal to load plugins with GPL licence, in music programs that isn't open source