The NetVST Project

[Luc]

It seems there is no mention of this in our forum, so it must be news to y'all:

http://netvst.org

What?
The NetVST Project is a collaboration between Shane Dunne in Canada and Hermann Seib in Austria, to develop a way to use Virtual Studio Technology (VST) plugins across fast local-area networks.

How?
A special VST host program called NetVSTHost runs on one computer, called the NetVST server, and the VSTs it loads can be used in a DAW program running on a different computer. This is done by loading special proxy plugins into the DAW, which communicate with the server across the network.

Why?
The first benefit of this approach is that the proxy plugins don't even have to use VST technology; they can be Audio Units (AU) plugins as well. This allows Windows-only VST plugins to be used inside a Mac DAW such as Logic Pro, which only supports AU plugins.

The other major benefit is that, because the actual VST plugin is running on a separate computer, it won't slow down the DAW, no matter how much CPU power or memory it uses. If many CPU-hungry VSTs (e.g. software synthesizers) are needed, one can simply put more NetVST server PCs onto the network.

Does it work?
At this point (March, 2017), the NetVST software is at a very early stage. It works, but just barely. If you are adventurous enough to try it, and quite ready for your DAW to hang or crash sometimes, pop over to the Downloads page on the NetVST wiki and get your own copy. It's free.

Those of more technical inclination should probably start here:
http://netvst.org/wiki/doku.php?id=more ... netvsthost

Downloads, Linux included:
http://netvst.org/wiki/doku.php?id=down ... ing_netvst

I just stumbled upon this, so I know almost nothing about it.

[Luc]

Sorry about the Linux mistake. I often see these things in my breaks from work, so I just spotted the word "Linux" on the downloads page and didn't really check. My bad.

Can't their minds be changed? They say,

It is not practical to make this an open-source project, because the code depends on a number of components, such as VST SDK (Steinberg) and AU SDK (Apple), which themselves are not open-source. We have therefore chosen to make the networking protocol open, but keep the source code closed to all except the project collaborators.

Sounds like a lame excuse to me. Or maybe they don't really know what they are talking about?

[Luc]

And I wonder about the latency of plugins that run over a network...

[tramp]

Sounds like a lame excuse to me. Or maybe they don't really know what they are talking about?

To me. it sounds more like YOU didn'z know what you talk about.

Sorry, for sounding harsh here, but,
do you know who Hermann Seib is?
It seems not. So, go, make your homework, before blame people/developers here.

Hermann Seib is the developer of one of the first (if not the first ever) open source VST hosts.
http://www.hermannseib.com/english/vsthost.htm
The reason why he didn't open his source any more, are people like you.

Originally, I made VSTHost available including the complete source code. Since I had to find out that (parts of) it made their way into other people's programs, and that without even mentioning my contribution, the open source variant has been frozen. I continue to add bug fixes to the existing code base, but new features won't make their way into it any more.

Respect, is one of the main features people in the open source world relay on.
I blame you for disrespect.

And now, I blame myself for losing my continence

[scalawag]

Some years ago i used Plasq Wormhole 2 and it worked very very well.
https://code.google.com/archive/p/wormhole2/
Not for linux thought.....

[Luc]

No, I don't know who they are.

But rather than telling me who they are, perhaps you could explain why they can't release their code. Which they don't. They just give a very vague justification.

They mention two SDKs that are closed source and... so what? Steinberg's SDK just changed their license and became more... uh... "friendly" very recently, and that didn't prevent the FOSS community from developing VST-related software for many years prior. I know nothing about the AU SDK, but you could say something about it if you do.

They can't release their code, but they can release the binaries? For free? Do they own licenses to use the proprietary SDKs? So they paid for the licenses and now give their software away for free, without any return on their investment? Out of their goodness of their hearts? Or do they intend to charge for it in the future? Do you know any of this? I don't.

Without those answers and with their vague justification, it sounds to me like they CAN release their code, but are more afraid of something written in the SDK licenses than they really should. Maybe they can release just their own code and omit anything that is proprietary. I don't know. Do you?

Now you tell me that at least one of the developers is a very experienced FOSS developer? Well, that makes it all even more confusing to me.

My doubt is reasonable.

[sysrqer]

He/they are under no obligation to release the source code, why are you speaking like it's your right to have it?

[Luc]

He/they are under no obligation to release the source code, why are you speaking like it's your right to have it?

No, I am not speaking like it's my right to have it.

FalkTX expressed his interest in the project and said it was unlikely it would ever become open source. (Maybe he understands why, but didn't mention it, but anyway...)
Then I replied that maybe their minds could be changed.

MAYBE... THEIR minds COULD be changed.

How did you find a sense of entitlement in those words?

EDIT: My exact words were "Can't their minds be changed?"
It's a question. It means I don't know if it's possible, but it's clear I understand it's their code and their decision.

[tramp]

Sounds like a lame excuse to me. Or maybe they don't really know what they are talking about?

But rather than telling me who they are, perhaps you could explain why they can't release their code. Which they don't. They just give a very vague justification.

Do you really ain't get it?

Originally, I made VSTHost available including the complete source code. Since I had to find out that (parts of) it made their way into other people's programs, and that without even mentioning my contribution, the open source variant has been frozen. I continue to add bug fixes to the existing code base, but new features won't make their way into it any more.

Respect, is one of the main features people in the open source world relay on.

Starting with a little respect for there work, will be the first step to make it happen, to change there minds (back), some words like:

Very neat project, but there's no actual Linux release,

maybe followed by

May I could help to make a linux port of it?

may help here, but for sure not

Sounds like a lame excuse to me. Or maybe they don't really know what they are talking about?

[Luc]

...and you still haven't explained why they can't release the code.

If they can and don't want to, it is indeed a lame excuse. In that hypothesis, I would respect their decision if they just gave no reason at all. If they gave no reason at all, that obviously would mean they don't want to share the code and that's the end of the story.

Unless they want to, but they believe they can't for wrong reasons, which is very possible. Maybe they're afraid of being sued while there isn't a real danger. Then it's not a lame excuse, but a wrong assumption.

Which is it? One of those or neither? We don't know yet. I've yet to see someone come up with clear, sound reasons.

[tramp]

...and you still haven't explained why they can't release the code.

If they can and don't want to, it is indeed a lame excuse.

Umpf, I cant believe that I still answer, but I do.

Hermann Seib stated clearly, that he wont release any open source any more, because people steel his code without respect the GPL clause of copyright holders. I know exactly which project he means, by the way. That is, no lame excuse, it's a real fact.
I'm myself run into the very same situation, and that is the exact reason why I ain't release my faust sources for pedal emulations any more.

That has nothing to do with if I can or not, this is because of missing respect for the work done.

You seems to believe you know a lot about wrong assumptions, but, take into account that your assumptions may be wrong as well.

And least of, all what you wrote here, is, for sure not helpful, to make it happen, that NetVST ever will become Open Source.

So, it's time to explain yourself, what is your intention?

[Luc]

My wrong assumptions are a result of the lack of clarity on the part of the developers.

Hermann Seib stated that clearly where? When? I can't possibly keep up with the entire Internet.

The reason you state for your own situation is bad. It makes a huge lot of innocent people pay for what a few rotten apples do. Personally, if I ever released any FOSS, it would be under the BSD license. No brainer. If you want to give away, just give it away, and forget about it. But I never, ever picked a fight with anyone over that. People are free to release their code under whatever license they like.

Now, the reason you state for the NetVST project is your assumption, unless you can refer me to the exact page on that project that confirms that is the actual reason why they won't release their code. Whether your assumption is right or wrong, time will tell.

[tramp]

Hermann Seib stated that clearly where? When? I can't possibly keep up with the entire Internet.

Hermann Seib is the developer of one of the first (if not the first ever) open source VST hosts.
http://www.hermannseib.com/english/vsthost.htm
The reason why he didn't open his source any more, are people like you.

Originally, I made VSTHost available including the complete source code. Since I had to find out that (parts of) it made their way into other people's programs, and that without even mentioning my contribution, the open source variant has been frozen. I continue to add bug fixes to the existing code base, but new features won't make their way into it any more.

[Luc]

That is another project. The vague reason provided on the NetVST project page is some problem with SDKs. If the real reason is the one you say it is, then the alleged problem with the SDKs is indeed a lame excuse. If.

[sysrqer]

People are free to release their code under whatever license they like.

Let him be then, he doesn't need to justify why it is not open source, it simply isn't.