KVR Audio

Ichad.c · Post by **Ichad.c** » Sat Jul 28, 2018 5:26 am

Just a reminder to everybody who uses any 'Save as VST' format, remember to get your official VST2 licence paperwork done. After October anybody without a licence will not be able to make a VST2 legally. And no new licences will be issued after October.

Here is a SE link for the paperwork:

http://www.synthedit.com/vst2-licensing/

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:43 am

They're f**king desperate to kill off VST2 arent they?

Surely this affects all VST2 plugin creation, too, including native code?

imrae · Post by **imrae** » Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:49 am

On the bright side, this is a great opportunity for non-Steinberg formats like LV2 to get some more interest...

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:57 am

imrae wrote:On the bright side, this is a great opportunity for non-Steinberg formats like LV2 to get some more interest...

You need to be a big optimist to think there's any chance for a new plugin format to establish itself in a market which is so slow to conform to new standards. Look at MIDI. Look at VST and other formats. No chance. Developers will either continue developing VST 2.4's, or VST3's. There's already loads of developers providing both for their plugins.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Sat Jul 28, 2018 11:01 am

Also; is there a specific reason that this is the license agreement for an older version of VST3, not the current one or the VST2 one; the VST2 license agreement document is still separately contained in the current (VST3 with VST2) SDK download.

lalo · Post by **lalo** » Sat Jul 28, 2018 11:52 am

Should we fill both the "Licensee" fields at the end of file? Or is intended for a third party license owner?
It is not so clear...

Ichad.c · Post by **Ichad.c** » Sat Jul 28, 2018 1:39 pm

lalo wrote:Should we fill both the "Licensee" fields at the end of file? Or is intended for a third party license owner?
It is not so clear...

Yeah, fill in everywhere it says "Licensee", think the "technical contact" is written that way for companies that have more that one employee. If your a one man show like most of us, just fill in all fields.

lalo · Post by **lalo** » Sat Jul 28, 2018 2:09 pm

Thanks @Ichad.c

Nielzie · Post by **Nielzie** » Sat Jul 28, 2018 5:29 pm

That's such a wrong way to push new technology "standards".

If the new technology is good enough then the market would turn it into a new overall accepted standard by itself.

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Sat Jul 28, 2018 5:35 pm

Nielzie wrote:That's such a wrong way to push new technology "standards".

If the new technology is good enough then the market would turn it into a new overall accepted standard by itself.

Not necessarily. Unwillingness to learn something new, especially when it is not well documented, and allegedly gives no advantages, when most hosts don't support the extensions anyway, could also be a reason to stick with what you know well. I'm pretty sure if all hosts supported all that VST3 is offering, then we'd see more VST3's as well.

Anyway, in Steinberg's positions, i'd close that chapter, develop VST4, make it easier for developers, then the new format would be more successful too. I just doubt that will happen, because they would have to spend valuable ressources on something which isn't 100% adding to their daily business. Not even sure who is responsible for VST3, and what they do in their daily job at Steinberg.

Nielzie · Post by **Nielzie** » Sat Jul 28, 2018 5:50 pm

chk071 wrote:
Nielzie wrote:That's such a wrong way to push new technology "standards".

If the new technology is good enough then the market would turn it into a new overall accepted standard by itself.
Not necessarily. Unwillingness to learn something new, especially when it is not well documented, and allegedly gives no advantages, when most hosts don't support the extensions anyway, could also be a reason to stick with what you know well. I'm pretty sure if all hosts supported all that VST3 is offering, then we'd see more VST3's as well.

Anyway, in Steinberg's positions, i'd close that chapter, develop VST4, make it easier for developers, then the new format would be more successful too. I just doubt that will happen, because they would have to spend valuable ressources on something which isn't 100% adding to their daily business. Not even sure who is responsible for VST3, and what they do in their daily job at Steinberg.

That's why open standards in software or on the internet are so important. Now one of the many audio companies tries to dictate which way the developments of a market standard should go. They sucked/locked "us" in and developers/users can't go back that easily because everyone is using it already.

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Sat Jul 28, 2018 5:56 pm

Where ARE the open standard which HAVE become industry standards then? VST, AU, AAX, RTAS... all proprietary.

vortico · Post by **vortico** » Sun Jul 29, 2018 11:19 pm

VST3 is GPL licensed, which I'd call "moderately open."

kirsty roland · Post by **kirsty roland** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 8:48 am

I read through the license agreement.
The wording explicitly states the gender his when referencing the licensee.
So in the strictest legal sense does that mean I am ineligible to apply.

Kirsty

WOK · Post by **WOK** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:28 am

kirsty roland wrote:I read through the license agreement.
The wording explicitly states the gender his when referencing the licensee.
So in the strictest legal sense does that mean I am ineligible to apply.
Kirsty

Let's sue them for violating gender equality laws! (if we can not do it for their software policy)

To all 'Save as VST' users -> Remember your VST2 licence