Bitwig 3 and future developer lv2 support gnu linux

[Tj Shredder]

Just read it, and you will know now!
They actually do not sue devs who signed VST2 agreement and still use it... You still need to sign a license if you want to create closed source plug-ins...

[abique]

Nothing speaks against adding LV2.
But *many* other topics have higher priority.

Maybe the LV2 team can implement an adapter LV2 -> VST3 in the meantime.

[tor.helge.skei]

i don't have much interest in lv2 plugins myself (even if i'm a linux user), but this one:
https://github.com/x42/lv2vst
have worked pretty well the few times i tested it..

[ejgallego]

Just wait until Steinberg releases VST4 and start to sue developers who still use VST3 for new projects. Then we'll see what the open source part of the license is worth.

I'm sorry, but that is just non-sense. Are you aware of how the GPL-3 works?

I'm afraid there are not a lot of IP lawyers commenting here.

[Benutzername]

The SDK is not GPL, it has a strict commercial license. You have to accept their license conditions before starting programming and you have to sign a NDA before you are allowed to publish closed source software that is using the interface. If Steinberg thinks that you should not work with the files anymore in your business for whatever reason then you are screwed. Period. The argument that Steinberg would never do that is invalid because they just did.

Additionally you are allowed to use the code in GPL compatible open source projects (GPL-3 exceptions don't apply here as by design all code is included via static linkage). As Steinberg is the only copyright owner they can change this license method at any time for no particular reason. That is also the reason why they don't accept commits from the outside - the new code would add external copyright owners to the table. If someone from Steinberg thinks that VST4 should not be open to GPL based software anymore then they can do that. They could even remove the GPL part from the current files if they decide to do so. Of course it is still possible to develop using the current GPL files but you are cut off from further developments. And this can grow to be a serious problem when Steinberg puts pressure on the developers to move away from VST3 to VST4.

TL;TR: The SDK is not open source. It has a commercial license that has a clause that allows open source based projects to use the files as well. This doesn't make the SDK open source and the license can change at any time for no particular reason.

[ejgallego]

TL;TR: The SDK is not open source. It has a commercial license that has a clause that allows open source based projects to use the files as well. This doesn't make the SDK open source and the license can change at any time for no particular reason.

No matter folks how much you repeat that, it is still incorrect. VST3 code is available in both a commercial and a open-source license. What you state above is incorrect 100%, the code is fully licensed with the combined status being GPL3, as stated on their webpage:

This Software Development Kit is licensed under the terms of the Steinberg VST3 License,
or alternatively under the terms of the General Public License (GPL) Version 3.
You may use the Software Development Kit according to either of these licenses as it is
most appropriate for your project on a case-by-case basis (commercial or not).

Please read https://sdk.steinberg.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=282 and talk to an IP lawyer before creating more confusion in the forum. Sorry, but you just don't understand how licensing and the GPLv3 works.

The commercial / copyleft licensing model (if you want to profit from the open source license you need to be open source too) has been used by many others software companies and so far has been held in court just right.

[lunardigs]

Benutzername has got it right; Steinberg can change their terms at any time. VST4 comes along one day ... who knows.

[ejgallego]

Benutzername has got it right; Steinberg can change their terms at any time. VST4 comes along one day ... who knows.

This does not make VST not free software.

[sth]

That is the prime difference that I consider, and it has not been introduced into this conversation before so I want to address it now. While some portions of the VST3 SDK are available under a GPLv3 license if you meet certain specific requirements that Steinberg has laid out, as a whole or even in specific cases it is not free. Generally people conflate Free software and Open Source software, but they are not the same (and when they are we should refer to it as FOSS).

For example, even under GPLv3 you may sell binaries of your application as long as you make the source available under GPLv3. However, if you did that with the VST3 SDK, you would be in violation of their dual-license situation which requires you to choose the Proprietary License if you profit from binaries.

Now, most VST3 SDK users are not going to go with GPLv3, so they must accept the shitty Proprietary License and deal with Steinberg's whims.

I disagree almost completely with Benutzername.

[ejgallego]

For example, even under GPLv3 you may sell binaries of your application as long as you make the source available under GPLv3. However, if you did that with the VST3 SDK, you would be in violation of their dual-license situation which requires you to choose the Proprietary License if you profit from binaries.

This is again incorrect, may you read VST3 license first? Quoting:

This Software Development Kit is licensed under the terms of the Steinberg VST3 License,
or alternatively under the terms of the General Public License (GPL) Version 3.
You may use the Software Development Kit according to either of these licenses as it is
most appropriate for your project on a case-by-case basis (commercial or not).

Note the highlighted part; if you choose GPL3 you can sell your plugin, however you must offer the source code alongside the binaries, as required by the GPL3.

One strength of GPL licenses is that they forbid the license granters to impose additional restrictions.

[Tj Shredder]

SDK means software development kit. If you create a VST3 plug-in you can do that with whatever tool you want. It could be the Steinberg SDK or some other tool. The SDK is not part of your plug-in... The VST3 under GPL remains free open software. You are free to reject the use of Steinbergs SDK (though it would make it more difficult to program a plug-in without giving you any benefit...)

[sth]

You misunderstand the SDK. You must build your plugins with the headers and possibly source code from the SDK; that's what makes it compatible with VST3 hosts. Without their SDK, you'd either have to completely black-box reverse engineer the protocols (to do so with knowledge of their code, e.g. by reading the files, would be illegal in many countries).

It's unlike other projects, where perhaps you could link against their binary and understand the protocol via documentation. In this case, you must build and include their headers and code within your binary.

[oddy.o.lynx]

I would like to see a host built into Bitwig, similar to the Grid, capable of loading LADSPA plugins.