LinuxMusicians

And Linux is now officially supported
https://sdk.steinberg.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=282

!!!!!!!!!

Unexpected!

https://github.com/steinbergmedia/vst3sdk interesting!

I'll probably still prefer openly-developed plugin API's, but this could be great for interoperability!

Holy Cow!!! This looks verrry interesting indeed!!

What are the possible implications for the future with this?

brian

For coders, this removes restrictions on products that could have been distributed in full,
were it not for the licensing. The restrictions were not 'money makers' for Steinberg,
and hindered developement for people outside of Steinbergs influence.
This was long lonnngggg lonnnnnggggg overdue.

I suspect the beancounters at Yamaha have looked at sales data, the global recession,
and profit margins, and prognosticated that this change will enable future projects
to be profitable, in the face of intense competition. They may have found some code
that benefits their hardware and software collective, as well as future media streaming
and security, and certainly would want to benefit from the freedom they once denied to others.

Finding who Yamaha bought out in 2016, and who they buy next, might fuel the speculation

@wrl pointed out to me that the VST2 part of the SDK is not available under the GPL.
Kind of a ? for me..

It makes sense, to the extent that Steinberg hopes that vst3 will dominate ...something...

With Renoise, Radium, Reaper, Qtractor, Mixbus, Carla, Ardour, Traction, Muse, Bitwig, Rosegarden, LMMS etc
all providing linux alternatives competing aginst costly 'standards' of Pro Tools, Cubase, Sonar, Ableton, FL Studio, and Mac sundries,
there is tremendous strain on the markets grid of Flux Capacitors!

briandc wrote:What are the possible implications for the future with this?

I suppose the main implication is that it'll become easier to (legally) write FLOSS hosts that can host proprietary plug-ins and FLOSS plug-ins that can be loaded in proprietary hosts.

raboof wrote:

briandc wrote:What are the possible implications for the future with this?

I suppose the main implication is that it'll become easier to (legally) write FLOSS hosts that can host proprietary plug-ins and FLOSS plug-ins that can be loaded in proprietary hosts.

Except you can't link GPL and non-GPL-compatible code together unless the author of the GPL part explicitly makes a linking exception. I hope they don't though.

FaTony wrote:Except you can't link GPL and non-GPL-compatible code together unless the author of the GPL part explicitly makes a linking exception. I hope they don't though.

When you want to distribute the result indeed you can't. An end-user, however, is free to link GPL and non-GPL-compatible code together.

So indeed you can't distribute a GPL host with a proprietary plugin linked into it (or vice-versa), but as an end-user you're free to download a GPL host and a proprietary plugin and load the plugin into the host (or vice-versa).

raboof wrote:When you want to distribute the result indeed you can't. An end-user, however, is free to link GPL and non-GPL-compatible code together.

If it worked the same way, I could pirate and break DRM and be fine because I don't distribute the result. End-used to bound by proprietary EULA and the GPL. Unless the law of the country allows some exception to licenses, only then the user can link both programs together.

FaTony wrote:

raboof wrote:When you want to distribute the result indeed you can't. An end-user, however, is free to link GPL and non-GPL-compatible code together.

If it worked the same way, I could pirate and break DRM and be fine because I don't distribute the result.

That's something completely different. Downloading a copyrighted work without permission is a copyright violation, and breaking the DRM may violate laws like the DMCA. Neither is a license violation.

FaTony wrote:End-used to bound by proprietary EULA and the GPL. Unless the law of the country allows some exception to licenses, only then the user can link both programs together.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure it's the GPL itself that (intentionally) only restricts distribution, not use. See for example https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en ... quirements .

raboof wrote:I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure it's the GPL itself that (intentionally) only restricts distribution, not use. See for example https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en ... quirements .

Hmm, I wasn't able to find a clear answer on the Internet. It's the interesting case.

FaTony wrote:

raboof wrote:I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure it's the GPL itself that (intentionally) only restricts distribution, not use. See for example https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en ... quirements .

Hmm, I wasn't able to find a clear answer on the Internet. It's the interesting case.

I'm pretty sure this answers the question. The GPL does not have any restrictions on personal use, so you're free to link it to whatever you wish.
It only restricts distribution rules.

Did someone successfully run their host example?
I've tried, but it doesn't load vst3's *.so