On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Victor Lazzarini <victor.lazzar...@nuim.ie> wrote: > Then there is the situation where you write a plugin using VST (and its > non-free license) and GPL. GPL should 'contaminate' the plugin making it > Free, but then Steinberg will come back at you for breaking its license. > Surely if you use GPL code, then you need to publish your header files too. > > Sorry, I did not mean to make this discussion longer than it needs to be, > but...
I think that situation is simpler, and is just as you surmise -- you can't redistribute a plugin that claims to be under the GPL if it uses the VST SDK headers. There _are_ some VST plugins out there that use the SDK but claim to be under the GPL, and I think that is really borne of frustration with the current impossibility of "doing it properly" because of the restrictive license for the SDK headers (most painfully, the SDK license's reverse-engineering clause effectively forbids publishing source for a plugin that _doesn't_ use the SDK, if you have already accepted the SDK license). So I expect the view is that, so long as nobody with a stake in the software objects to it, then at least the license has described what the plugin's author would like to happen in an ideal world. It's a grey-market situation. You wouldn't be able to include such a plugin in a typical Linux distribution. Chris _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
