Distributing VST2 made with SynthEdit, a subtle legal matter

[elena2]

Hi, I know this has been debated ad nauseam everywhere, but my point is quite subtle and different, please read on.

Suppose I am totally against VST3 for reasons I am not going to discuss here, and I would like to still distribute my plugins as VST2.
But I can't legally do that since I signed my agreement with Steinberg after 2018.
I am using SynthEdit (for some unclear reason, unlike Flowstone users, SynthEdit users are required to sign a VST agreement, but this is another topic).
SynthEdit has a peculiarity: the plugins generated are "polymorphic", they are detected by any DAW as VST2 if they have a .dll extension, or as VST3 is they have a .vst3 extension.
But in both cases, the binaries contain VST3 labels, not VST2 labels: if you inspect them with a resource editor, or simply invoking Properties/Details in Windows explorer, they are identified as "VST3 plugin". So, they present themselves as VST3 plugins in both cases.

On the light of that:

1. I really wonder if distributing such a plugin with its .dll extension, which will behave like a VST2 but technically is perhaps more a VST3, is still deemed illegal. Consider that in this case I would NEVER advertise, label or present the plugin as "VST2" but only more generically as "VST", or I could even omit the "VST" word completely

2. I also wonder if, on the contrary, it is even illegal to distribute such a VST3 with the .vst3 extension and which behaves like a VST3, given it can virtually behave as a VST2 if its extension is changed to .dll, which implies it *must* also contain VST2 SDK parts (which would be illegal) !

I hope in some relevant replies and not in an infinite thread, which I won't be able to follow any more
Unfortunately, I have found a local lawyer specialised in software and licenses and who could help me, but she asked eur 900 to study the case, which I cannot afford of course.

Thanks in advance.

[xos]

On the first page in the licensing Agreement it states...
6. This Agreement neither applies to the development nor the hosting of VST2 Plug-Ins
...so you signing that agreement has nothing to do with VST2.

Maybe you want to check out what fair use is in trademark law. This “fair use” exception is recognized throughout most of the world. "Descriptive fair use permits use of another’s trademark to describe the user’s products or services, rather than as a trademark to indicate the source of the goods or services". You can use a trademark if you don't misrepresent it as your own trademark.

Some parts of the VST2SDK contains code you can not use. But header files is not considered to be code.

[Cyforce]

As far as i remember correctly, there were 2 different agreements, to sign (and get back from Steinberg) to use VST2 and VST3 - for each a separate one. So even if you may have a VST3 agreement signed back by Steinberg - it`s for VST3. And no matter if parts of the code (or just the header) relate to VST2 - if it`s VST2 format (!) it may be only fine to distribute with a signed VST2 agreement I assume? So best would be - contact Steinberg directly, better ask and check instead of later on getting in some trouble and maybe the need to pull back released plugins?

[Urs]

On the first page in the licensing Agreement it states...
6. This Agreement neither applies to the development nor the hosting of VST2 Plug-Ins
...so you signing that agreement has nothing to do with VST2.

Not development or hosting of plug-ins, indeed. But surely publishing, which it unambiguously ends for the signee.

[ghettosynth]

Synthedit supporting CLAP could trigger a revival of interest in Synthedit. Sorry, a bit off topic I know.

[xos]

On the first page in the licensing Agreement it states...
6. This Agreement neither applies to the development nor the hosting of VST2 Plug-Ins
...so you signing that agreement has nothing to do with VST2.

Not development or hosting of plug-ins, indeed. But surely publishing, which it unambiguously ends for the signee.

There is exceptions in trademark law called 'normative fair use' to use other companies trademarks to sell products, without any agreements.

So anyone can make a VST2 plug. So there is not any problems to publish host or plugins without any agreement, and use their trademarks to sell products.

And when it comes to copyright law, it's fair use to use a API, at least in USA. Just check the rulings in the google vs oracle case. But it's not strictly needed to use the API to make a host or a plug.

You can surely use a ABI that someone else has made without bothering, as it well established decades ago. A country that would rule otherwise would put that country back to the stone age, as it would make it illegal to use most any electronic device or software.

[Urs]

SDK != trademark

(just like I can't just compile any GPLv3 library into my closed source software only because I wouldn't infringe any trademark)

[xos]

SDK != trademark

(just like I can't just compile any GPLv3 library into my closed source software only because I wouldn't infringe any trademark)

Yes!

But you don't need to use the VST2SDK to make a VST2 plug or host. If I have understood it right vestige.h gives the same API without using the VST2SDK.
https://github.com/x42/lv2vst/blob/mast ... /vestige.h

In theory it should be quite simple to make a total replacement of the VST2SDK to make most plugs compile without that SDK.

[Urs]

But the OP asks about Synthedit. I'd be surprised if it was made with VeSTige since I guess it predates VeSTige by a decade or so.

The cautious words in them beginning of the the VeSTige headers (here) are not exactly confidence inspiring either.

[xos]

But the OP asks about Synthedit. I'd be surprised if it was made with VeSTige since I guess it predates VeSTige by a decade or so.

The cautious words in them beginning of the the VeSTige headers (here) are not exactly confidence inspiring either.

Yes!
I don't know how Synthedit works. If it's a binary blob, it would be like saying that you can't sell patches for some audio plugin without having a licenses for different SDK's that the plugin developer has used.

[BertKoor]

Bad example. Not just a patch is sold, but also the whole binary that can run it.