Thread: [Audacity-devel] Plug-ins and the GPL
A free multi-track audio editor and recorder
Brought to you by:
aosiniao
Menu
▾
▴
audacity-devel
|
From: Dominic M. <do...@au...> - 2004-10-31 19:01:47
|
I may have touched on this before, but I just wanted to discuss one major reason to add support for DirectX plug-ins and drop support for VST: I believe this clears up any GPL licensing issues. Because calling DirectX plug-ins and Audio Units amounts to making OS API calls, as opposed to opening up DLLs and interacting with them, they do not form a single combined program. Most importantly, Erik de Castro Lopo just told me that he would be happy for us to use libsamplerate again in Audacity if we drop support for opening proprietary plug-in formats (e.g. VST) and use only plug-ins through the interface the OS provides. (He said LADSPA is fine, too, because on Linux it already ships with most distros, and besides, I have yet to see a LADSPA plug-in that's not open-source...) - Dominic |
|
From: Markus M. <me...@me...> - 2004-10-31 20:09:46
|
Dominic, I'm fine with adding support for DirectX, AudioUnit and whatever extends the functionality of Audacity, but I do not agree with Erik here, and I don't think dropping VST support is a good idea. VST is a platform-independent format (at least in theory), is widely used, available in source code, and comes with only a few strings attached (and these strings are only for the developer, not for the user). It's from a comparably small company which has a track record of making high-quality software that serves the user. That the VST SDK's license is not compatible with the GPL is a sad thing. But there are many other licenses which are not compatible with the GPL, and many of them give the user much more freedom (in terms of number of ways to use, extend and distribute the software) than the GPL does. Just consider the original BSD-license with advertising clause, and how many things you can do with BSD-licensed stuff that would be prohibited under the GPL. My point here is that if the GPL is not compatible with some other license, it's as much the GPL's fault as it is the other license's. DirectX on the other hand, is a huge, binary download, which has a use license (EULA) that has nothing to do with the idea of free software. It comes from a company which has been known to violate antitrust laws. It has been developed especially for one platform, although at the time of creation other open standards were already ready to be used, and the free software community would have been more than happy to help create a truly platform-independent, open standard. DirectX is one of the reasons why the number of games that (also) run on Linux and Mac is so small. Some say, it's inclusion in the OS is against the law (as is the inclusion of Internet Explorer into Windows). Additionally, I don't see what Erik has to say about the use of LADSPA. Last time I checked, LADSPA was LGPL (I mean, the specification) and libsamplerate was GPL. These two licenses are supposed to be compatible. I cannot see how the existence of proprietary LADSPA plugins would change this situation, and I also cannot see why it should make a difference if Linux distros come with LADSPA or not. To conclude that, I'm not happy with the VST licensing problems either. But I'd be much less happy if Audacity would commit to using proprietary, closed, patented, binary-only standards like DirectX. The licensing of the VST SDK may not be optimal from a free software developer's point of view, but it is the least evil for the moment. Markus Am Son, den 31.10.2004 schrieb Dominic Mazzoni um 20:00: > I may have touched on this before, but I just wanted to discuss one > major reason to add support for DirectX plug-ins and drop support for > VST: I believe this clears up any GPL licensing issues. Because > calling DirectX plug-ins and Audio Units amounts to making OS API > calls, as opposed to opening up DLLs and interacting with them, they do > not form a single combined program. > > Most importantly, Erik de Castro Lopo just told me that he would be > happy for us to use libsamplerate again in Audacity if we drop support > for opening proprietary plug-in formats (e.g. VST) and use only > plug-ins through the interface the OS provides. (He said LADSPA is > fine, too, because on Linux it already ships with most distros, and > besides, I have yet to see a LADSPA plug-in that's not open-source...) > > - Dominic > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: > Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE > LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-devel mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel |
|
From: Dominic M. <do...@au...> - 2004-11-02 10:14:31
|
Markus, I wish it didn't have to be an either/or thing. If it weren't for the GPL licensing issue, of course we would support VST plug-ins. DirectX would just be a bonus. The fact is, though, that we can't support VST plug-ins directly, unless there's a licensing change. And the VST Enabler is a poor hack that doesn't work very well and couldn't possibly support native plug-in GUIs, which is a big deal because basically every other VST host program supports them. Using the DirectX API will allow us to support plug-ins with native GUIs without any licensing issues. Using Audio Units on the Mac allows us to do the same. I'm more like Linus Torvalds than Richard Stallman. I'm a pragmatist. I don't believe commercial software is evil, or that Microsoft is evil. I don't like using Windows myself, but I understand that it gets the job done for many people. I also know that in order for many people to take Audacity seriously, they want to be able to use a large collection of digital effects with fancy graphical GUIs. - Dominic On Oct 31, 2004, at 12:11 PM, Markus Meyer wrote: > Dominic, > > I'm fine with adding support for DirectX, AudioUnit and whatever > extends > the functionality of Audacity, but I do not agree with Erik here, and I > don't think dropping VST support is a good idea. > > VST is a platform-independent format (at least in theory), is widely > used, available in source code, and comes with only a few strings > attached (and these strings are only for the developer, not for the > user). It's from a comparably small company which has a track record of > making high-quality software that serves the user. That the VST SDK's > license is not compatible with the GPL is a sad thing. But there are > many other licenses which are not compatible with the GPL, and many of > them give the user much more freedom (in terms of number of ways to > use, > extend and distribute the software) than the GPL does. Just consider > the > original BSD-license with advertising clause, and how many things you > can do with BSD-licensed stuff that would be prohibited under the GPL. > My point here is that if the GPL is not compatible with some other > license, it's as much the GPL's fault as it is the other license's. > > DirectX on the other hand, is a huge, binary download, which has a use > license (EULA) that has nothing to do with the idea of free software. > It > comes from a company which has been known to violate antitrust laws. It > has been developed especially for one platform, although at the time of > creation other open standards were already ready to be used, and the > free software community would have been more than happy to help create > a > truly platform-independent, open standard. DirectX is one of the > reasons > why the number of games that (also) run on Linux and Mac is so small. > Some say, it's inclusion in the OS is against the law (as is the > inclusion of Internet Explorer into Windows). > > Additionally, I don't see what Erik has to say about the use of LADSPA. > Last time I checked, LADSPA was LGPL (I mean, the specification) and > libsamplerate was GPL. These two licenses are supposed to be > compatible. > I cannot see how the existence of proprietary LADSPA plugins would > change this situation, and I also cannot see why it should make a > difference if Linux distros come with LADSPA or not. > > To conclude that, I'm not happy with the VST licensing problems either. > But I'd be much less happy if Audacity would commit to using > proprietary, closed, patented, binary-only standards like DirectX. The > licensing of the VST SDK may not be optimal from a free software > developer's point of view, but it is the least evil for the moment. > > > Markus > > Am Son, den 31.10.2004 schrieb Dominic Mazzoni um 20:00: >> I may have touched on this before, but I just wanted to discuss one >> major reason to add support for DirectX plug-ins and drop support for >> VST: I believe this clears up any GPL licensing issues. Because >> calling DirectX plug-ins and Audio Units amounts to making OS API >> calls, as opposed to opening up DLLs and interacting with them, they >> do >> not form a single combined program. >> >> Most importantly, Erik de Castro Lopo just told me that he would be >> happy for us to use libsamplerate again in Audacity if we drop support >> for opening proprietary plug-in formats (e.g. VST) and use only >> plug-ins through the interface the OS provides. (He said LADSPA is >> fine, too, because on Linux it already ships with most distros, and >> besides, I have yet to see a LADSPA plug-in that's not open-source...) >> >> - Dominic >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: >> Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE >> LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. >> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click >> _______________________________________________ >> Audacity-devel mailing list >> Aud...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: > Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE > LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-devel mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel |
|
From: Alexandre P. <ale...@gm...> - 2004-11-02 10:23:48
|
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 02:13:44 -0800, Dominic Mazzoni <do...@au...> wrote: > I wish it didn't have to be an either/or thing. If it weren't for the > GPL licensing issue, of course we would support VST plug-ins. DirectX > would just be a bonus. > > The fact is, though, that we can't support VST plug-ins directly, > unless there's a licensing change. And the VST Enabler is a poor hack > that doesn't work very well and couldn't possibly support native > plug-in GUIs, which is a big deal because basically every other VST > host program supports them. http://sourceforge.net/projects/vstgui Alexandre |
|
From: Dominic M. <do...@au...> - 2004-11-02 21:02:36
|
Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: >>The fact is, though, that we can't support VST plug-ins directly, >>unless there's a licensing change. And the VST Enabler is a poor hack >>that doesn't work very well and couldn't possibly support native >>plug-in GUIs, which is a big deal because basically every other VST >>host program supports them. > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/vstgui Unfortunately this doesn't help - the issue is that as long as we are using LADSPA as the bridge between Audacity and VST, and LADSPA doesn't have any GUI support, we can't support VST GUIs. - Dominic |
|
From: Steve H. <S.W...@ec...> - 2004-11-03 05:35:30
|
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 01:02:24PM -0800, Dominic Mazzoni wrote: > Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: > >>The fact is, though, that we can't support VST plug-ins directly, > >>unless there's a licensing change. And the VST Enabler is a poor hack > >>that doesn't work very well and couldn't possibly support native > >>plug-in GUIs, which is a big deal because basically every other VST > >>host program supports them. > > > >http://sourceforge.net/projects/vstgui > > Unfortunately this doesn't help - the issue is that as long as we are > using LADSPA as the bridge between Audacity and VST, and LADSPA doesn't > have any GUI support, we can't support VST GUIs. There is DSSI, which is essentailly LADSPA plus MIDI handling capabilities and includes a GUI spec: http://dssi.sourceforge.net/ It is back compatible with LADSPA. Version 0.9 will be out in a day or two, and it comes with a DSSI VST bridge that supports GUIs. - Steve |
|
From: Markus M. <me...@me...> - 2004-11-03 00:55:53
|
Dominic, no I don't think that Microsoft or whoever is evil. But let's separate the technical/licensing issues and the emotional issues once again. I'm sorry if my reply sounded too emotional. I'm sometimes a little upset too fast... What I believe is that I just didn't really understand what your exact proposal was (or maybe, you intentionally wanted to leave it open and discuss with the list). I certainly would feel better if you could just clarify your exact plans on plugin support. Especially I'd like to know: You said you want to "drop VST support". Does this mean (a) You stop your plan re-introducing native VST support into Audacity (b) You stop developing/remove from the website the VST enabler (c) You instead start creating a VST enabler for DirectX (d) You remove everything VST-related from Audacity and encourage all other devs to not support users that want to use/create VST/DirectX/LADSPA/or-whatever bridges? When you talk about supporting DirectX, are you really sure that it is part of the operating system in the sense the GPL requires? I don't think DirectX is part of Win98 or WinNT4, and even the version that comes with Win2000 or WinME may not have all the features yet we need for Audacity. What do you think are the exact licensing issues with the current VST enabler? Or is it just that native GUIs don't seem to be supportable? (I for one am confident that the latter problem could be solved, not in a cross-platform way, but for each platform separately at least) Markus Am Die, den 02.11.2004 schrieb Dominic Mazzoni um 11:13: > Markus, > > I wish it didn't have to be an either/or thing. If it weren't for the > GPL licensing issue, of course we would support VST plug-ins. DirectX > would just be a bonus. > > The fact is, though, that we can't support VST plug-ins directly, > unless there's a licensing change. And the VST Enabler is a poor hack > that doesn't work very well and couldn't possibly support native > plug-in GUIs, which is a big deal because basically every other VST > host program supports them. > > Using the DirectX API will allow us to support plug-ins with native > GUIs without any licensing issues. Using Audio Units on the Mac allows > us to do the same. > > I'm more like Linus Torvalds than Richard Stallman. I'm a pragmatist. > I don't believe commercial software is evil, or that Microsoft is evil. > I don't like using Windows myself, but I understand that it gets the > job done for many people. I also know that in order for many people to > take Audacity seriously, they want to be able to use a large collection > of digital effects with fancy graphical GUIs. > > - Dominic > > On Oct 31, 2004, at 12:11 PM, Markus Meyer wrote: > > Dominic, > > > > I'm fine with adding support for DirectX, AudioUnit and whatever > > extends > > the functionality of Audacity, but I do not agree with Erik here, and I > > don't think dropping VST support is a good idea. > > > > VST is a platform-independent format (at least in theory), is widely > > used, available in source code, and comes with only a few strings > > attached (and these strings are only for the developer, not for the > > user). It's from a comparably small company which has a track record of > > making high-quality software that serves the user. That the VST SDK's > > license is not compatible with the GPL is a sad thing. But there are > > many other licenses which are not compatible with the GPL, and many of > > them give the user much more freedom (in terms of number of ways to > > use, > > extend and distribute the software) than the GPL does. Just consider > > the > > original BSD-license with advertising clause, and how many things you > > can do with BSD-licensed stuff that would be prohibited under the GPL. > > My point here is that if the GPL is not compatible with some other > > license, it's as much the GPL's fault as it is the other license's. > > > > DirectX on the other hand, is a huge, binary download, which has a use > > license (EULA) that has nothing to do with the idea of free software. > > It > > comes from a company which has been known to violate antitrust laws. It > > has been developed especially for one platform, although at the time of > > creation other open standards were already ready to be used, and the > > free software community would have been more than happy to help create > > a > > truly platform-independent, open standard. DirectX is one of the > > reasons > > why the number of games that (also) run on Linux and Mac is so small. > > Some say, it's inclusion in the OS is against the law (as is the > > inclusion of Internet Explorer into Windows). > > > > Additionally, I don't see what Erik has to say about the use of LADSPA. > > Last time I checked, LADSPA was LGPL (I mean, the specification) and > > libsamplerate was GPL. These two licenses are supposed to be > > compatible. > > I cannot see how the existence of proprietary LADSPA plugins would > > change this situation, and I also cannot see why it should make a > > difference if Linux distros come with LADSPA or not. > > > > To conclude that, I'm not happy with the VST licensing problems either. > > But I'd be much less happy if Audacity would commit to using > > proprietary, closed, patented, binary-only standards like DirectX. The > > licensing of the VST SDK may not be optimal from a free software > > developer's point of view, but it is the least evil for the moment. > > > > > > Markus > > > > Am Son, den 31.10.2004 schrieb Dominic Mazzoni um 20:00: > >> I may have touched on this before, but I just wanted to discuss one > >> major reason to add support for DirectX plug-ins and drop support for > >> VST: I believe this clears up any GPL licensing issues. Because > >> calling DirectX plug-ins and Audio Units amounts to making OS API > >> calls, as opposed to opening up DLLs and interacting with them, they > >> do > >> not form a single combined program. > >> > >> Most importantly, Erik de Castro Lopo just told me that he would be > >> happy for us to use libsamplerate again in Audacity if we drop support > >> for opening proprietary plug-in formats (e.g. VST) and use only > >> plug-ins through the interface the OS provides. (He said LADSPA is > >> fine, too, because on Linux it already ships with most distros, and > >> besides, I have yet to see a LADSPA plug-in that's not open-source...) > >> > >> - Dominic > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------- > >> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: > >> Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE > >> LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. > >> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Audacity-devel mailing list > >> Aud...@li... > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: > > Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE > > LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click > > _______________________________________________ > > Audacity-devel mailing list > > Aud...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: > Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE > LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-devel mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel |
|
From: Dominic M. <do...@au...> - 2004-11-03 01:37:07
|
Markus Meyer wrote: > Dominic, > > no I don't think that Microsoft or whoever is evil. But let's separate > the technical/licensing issues and the emotional issues once again. I'm > sorry if my reply sounded too emotional. I'm sometimes a little upset > too fast... I understand. Kind of like the current U.S. election... :) > What I believe is that I just didn't really understand what your exact > proposal was (or maybe, you intentionally wanted to leave it open and > discuss with the list). I certainly would feel better if you could just > clarify your exact plans on plugin support. Especially I'd like to know: > > You said you want to "drop VST support". Does this mean > > (a) You stop your plan re-introducing native VST support into Audacity Maybe I forgot, but I don't remember a plan to introduce native support. Has anything changed with the licensing? > (b) You stop developing/remove from the website the VST enabler I wouldn't remove it, but I personally would probably stop developing it, and I would make DirectX plug-ins more prominent on the links page. > (c) You instead start creating a VST enabler for DirectX Actually a commercial one already exists, I believe. Starting to work on a freeware one (couldn't be GPL, but could be open-source) would be worth considering. Supporting GUIs this way would definitely be easier than using LADSPA as a bridge. > (d) You remove everything VST-related from Audacity and encourage all > other devs to not support users that want to use/create > VST/DirectX/LADSPA/or-whatever bridges? Absolutely not. I don't want to discourage anything. What I want to do is to figure out the best solution > When you talk about supporting DirectX, are you really sure that it is > part of the operating system in the sense the GPL requires? I don't > think DirectX is part of Win98 or WinNT4, and even the version that > comes with Win2000 or WinME may not have all the features yet we need > for Audacity. That is possibly a gray area, but it's developed by Microsoft, it's free, it's tightly integrated, it's Microsoft's preferred API for developers to access high-performance audio and video devices, it's a free download for old versions of the operating system, and it's definitely distributed with new versions of the operating system. > What do you think are the exact licensing issues with the current VST > enabler? Or is it just that native GUIs don't seem to be supportable? (I > for one am confident that the latter problem could be solved, not in a > cross-platform way, but for each platform separately at least) Clearly we could add an extension to LADSPA that enables native GUIs. However, in this case it'd be hard to argue that we're not explicitly adding support for VST to Audacity. - Dominic > > Markus > > Am Die, den 02.11.2004 schrieb Dominic Mazzoni um 11:13: > >>Markus, >> >>I wish it didn't have to be an either/or thing. If it weren't for the >>GPL licensing issue, of course we would support VST plug-ins. DirectX >>would just be a bonus. >> >>The fact is, though, that we can't support VST plug-ins directly, >>unless there's a licensing change. And the VST Enabler is a poor hack >>that doesn't work very well and couldn't possibly support native >>plug-in GUIs, which is a big deal because basically every other VST >>host program supports them. >> >>Using the DirectX API will allow us to support plug-ins with native >>GUIs without any licensing issues. Using Audio Units on the Mac allows >>us to do the same. >> >>I'm more like Linus Torvalds than Richard Stallman. I'm a pragmatist. >>I don't believe commercial software is evil, or that Microsoft is evil. >> I don't like using Windows myself, but I understand that it gets the >>job done for many people. I also know that in order for many people to >>take Audacity seriously, they want to be able to use a large collection >>of digital effects with fancy graphical GUIs. >> >>- Dominic >> >>On Oct 31, 2004, at 12:11 PM, Markus Meyer wrote: >> >>>Dominic, >>> >>>I'm fine with adding support for DirectX, AudioUnit and whatever >>>extends >>>the functionality of Audacity, but I do not agree with Erik here, and I >>>don't think dropping VST support is a good idea. >>> >>>VST is a platform-independent format (at least in theory), is widely >>>used, available in source code, and comes with only a few strings >>>attached (and these strings are only for the developer, not for the >>>user). It's from a comparably small company which has a track record of >>>making high-quality software that serves the user. That the VST SDK's >>>license is not compatible with the GPL is a sad thing. But there are >>>many other licenses which are not compatible with the GPL, and many of >>>them give the user much more freedom (in terms of number of ways to >>>use, >>>extend and distribute the software) than the GPL does. Just consider >>>the >>>original BSD-license with advertising clause, and how many things you >>>can do with BSD-licensed stuff that would be prohibited under the GPL. >>>My point here is that if the GPL is not compatible with some other >>>license, it's as much the GPL's fault as it is the other license's. >>> >>>DirectX on the other hand, is a huge, binary download, which has a use >>>license (EULA) that has nothing to do with the idea of free software. >>>It >>>comes from a company which has been known to violate antitrust laws. It >>>has been developed especially for one platform, although at the time of >>>creation other open standards were already ready to be used, and the >>>free software community would have been more than happy to help create >>>a >>>truly platform-independent, open standard. DirectX is one of the >>>reasons >>>why the number of games that (also) run on Linux and Mac is so small. >>>Some say, it's inclusion in the OS is against the law (as is the >>>inclusion of Internet Explorer into Windows). >>> >>>Additionally, I don't see what Erik has to say about the use of LADSPA. >>>Last time I checked, LADSPA was LGPL (I mean, the specification) and >>>libsamplerate was GPL. These two licenses are supposed to be >>>compatible. >>>I cannot see how the existence of proprietary LADSPA plugins would >>>change this situation, and I also cannot see why it should make a >>>difference if Linux distros come with LADSPA or not. >>> >>>To conclude that, I'm not happy with the VST licensing problems either. >>>But I'd be much less happy if Audacity would commit to using >>>proprietary, closed, patented, binary-only standards like DirectX. The >>>licensing of the VST SDK may not be optimal from a free software >>>developer's point of view, but it is the least evil for the moment. >>> >>> >>>Markus >>> >>>Am Son, den 31.10.2004 schrieb Dominic Mazzoni um 20:00: >>> >>>>I may have touched on this before, but I just wanted to discuss one >>>>major reason to add support for DirectX plug-ins and drop support for >>>>VST: I believe this clears up any GPL licensing issues. Because >>>>calling DirectX plug-ins and Audio Units amounts to making OS API >>>>calls, as opposed to opening up DLLs and interacting with them, they >>>>do >>>>not form a single combined program. >>>> >>>>Most importantly, Erik de Castro Lopo just told me that he would be >>>>happy for us to use libsamplerate again in Audacity if we drop support >>>>for opening proprietary plug-in formats (e.g. VST) and use only >>>>plug-ins through the interface the OS provides. (He said LADSPA is >>>>fine, too, because on Linux it already ships with most distros, and >>>>besides, I have yet to see a LADSPA plug-in that's not open-source...) >>>> >>>>- Dominic >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>------------------------------------------------------- >>>>This SF.Net email is sponsored by: >>>>Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE >>>>LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. >>>>http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Audacity-devel mailing list >>>>Aud...@li... >>>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel >>> >>> >>> >>>------------------------------------------------------- >>>This SF.Net email is sponsored by: >>>Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE >>>LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. >>>http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Audacity-devel mailing list >>>Aud...@li... >>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel >> >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------- >>This SF.Net email is sponsored by: >>Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE >>LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. >>http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click >>_______________________________________________ >>Audacity-devel mailing list >>Aud...@li... >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: > Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE > LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-devel mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel |
|
From: Dave F. <dav...@da...> - 2004-11-07 05:19:39
|
On Tuesday 02 November 2004 04:13 am, Dominic Mazzoni wrote: > Markus, > > I wish it didn't have to be an either/or thing. If it weren't for the > GPL licensing issue, of course we would support VST plug-ins. DirectX > would just be a bonus. > > The fact is, though, that we can't support VST plug-ins directly, > unless there's a licensing change. And the VST Enabler is a poor hack > that doesn't work very well and couldn't possibly support native > plug-in GUIs, which is a big deal because basically every other VST > host program supports them. Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't the VST enabler be able to support VST plug-in GUIs? If I were doing this, and I'm not, I'd first make the VST enabler public domain (this would solve *all* licensing issues surrounding it). Since it's so small, and the only possible use of it is to make VST plugins work on LADSPA hosts, the risk of someone closing up the source and releasing their own plugins with it is minimal, while the benefits of someone doing that are potentially large (think: VST plugin authors supporting LADSPA hosts). Then I'd make "Audacity LADSPA GUI extensions", port a few existing LADSPA plug-ins to use it, and get invovled with LADSPA (if nobody here is already involved there) with working on a GUI standard for LADSPA. Then I'd make the VST Enabler support Audacity's GUI extensions. Finally, I'd take some existing LADSPA plugins, port them to the VST API, and release them, preferably as public domain also (carefully selecting which ones, of course) if possible. Is it possible to develop a VST plugin that doesn't need the VST SDK? Is it possible for someone to reverse-engineer a VST plug-in that allows them to create headers that can be freely distributed? (Like MingW did with the winapi headers) Better yet, would it be possible to take an open source VST plugin, examine the source (which you have the right to do) and create new headers? A little simpler than reverse-engineering a binary plugin. Having never looked at VST SDK sources, I could do it if someone sent me such a plugin. I assume Erik de Castro's library is GPL itself, is that correct? If so, the only say he has in the matter revolves around whether or not Audacity itself complies with the GNU GPL, which it wouldn't if it depends on VST and can't provide the sources to build Audacity. The way I understand it, you can't modify the GNU GPL and still say your program is licensed under the GNU GPL, and you can't modify the GNU GPL in such a way to take away rights that the GPL itself already grants, you can only add a place to make exceptions. If that's correct, then as long as you make it so that Audacity supports VST plugins and still complies with the GPL, Erik de Castro can't forbid you to use his library. So you should be able to just make an exception in your own license (provided by the GPL already) allowing you to link against VST. Or you can make VST support optional at build time and provide a binary that doesn't support VST and a binary that does, and disclaim ownership of the binary that does. :) Legal crap, I realize, but library authors shouldn't dictate what other libraries application developers can link to, in my opinion. > Using the DirectX API will allow us to support plug-ins with native > GUIs without any licensing issues. Using Audio Units on the Mac allows > us to do the same. > > I'm more like Linus Torvalds than Richard Stallman. I'm a pragmatist. > I don't believe commercial software is evil, or that Microsoft is evil. > I don't like using Windows myself, but I understand that it gets the > job done for many people. I also know that in order for many people to > take Audacity seriously, they want to be able to use a large collection > of digital effects with fancy graphical GUIs. I tend to think that there's a time and place to demand freedom and a time and place to let it go. This is a time and place to let it go, because demanding freedom guarantees Audacity will, as you say, not be taken seriously by many people. If, on the other hand, Audacity is taken seriously by these people, then you have the opportunity to gain enough widespread support to make a real demand for freedom, and demand the VST SDK license change so you can distribute the headers, or remove support for it. Or something like that. Dave > - Dominic > > On Oct 31, 2004, at 12:11 PM, Markus Meyer wrote: > > Dominic, > > > > I'm fine with adding support for DirectX, AudioUnit and whatever > > extends > > the functionality of Audacity, but I do not agree with Erik here, and I > > don't think dropping VST support is a good idea. > > > > VST is a platform-independent format (at least in theory), is widely > > used, available in source code, and comes with only a few strings > > attached (and these strings are only for the developer, not for the > > user). It's from a comparably small company which has a track record of > > making high-quality software that serves the user. That the VST SDK's > > license is not compatible with the GPL is a sad thing. But there are > > many other licenses which are not compatible with the GPL, and many of > > them give the user much more freedom (in terms of number of ways to > > use, > > extend and distribute the software) than the GPL does. Just consider > > the > > original BSD-license with advertising clause, and how many things you > > can do with BSD-licensed stuff that would be prohibited under the GPL. > > My point here is that if the GPL is not compatible with some other > > license, it's as much the GPL's fault as it is the other license's. > > > > DirectX on the other hand, is a huge, binary download, which has a use > > license (EULA) that has nothing to do with the idea of free software. > > It > > comes from a company which has been known to violate antitrust laws. It > > has been developed especially for one platform, although at the time of > > creation other open standards were already ready to be used, and the > > free software community would have been more than happy to help create > > a > > truly platform-independent, open standard. DirectX is one of the > > reasons > > why the number of games that (also) run on Linux and Mac is so small. > > Some say, it's inclusion in the OS is against the law (as is the > > inclusion of Internet Explorer into Windows). > > > > Additionally, I don't see what Erik has to say about the use of LADSPA. > > Last time I checked, LADSPA was LGPL (I mean, the specification) and > > libsamplerate was GPL. These two licenses are supposed to be > > compatible. > > I cannot see how the existence of proprietary LADSPA plugins would > > change this situation, and I also cannot see why it should make a > > difference if Linux distros come with LADSPA or not. > > > > To conclude that, I'm not happy with the VST licensing problems either. > > But I'd be much less happy if Audacity would commit to using > > proprietary, closed, patented, binary-only standards like DirectX. The > > licensing of the VST SDK may not be optimal from a free software > > developer's point of view, but it is the least evil for the moment. > > > > > > Markus > > > > Am Son, den 31.10.2004 schrieb Dominic Mazzoni um 20:00: > >> I may have touched on this before, but I just wanted to discuss one > >> major reason to add support for DirectX plug-ins and drop support for > >> VST: I believe this clears up any GPL licensing issues. Because > >> calling DirectX plug-ins and Audio Units amounts to making OS API > >> calls, as opposed to opening up DLLs and interacting with them, they > >> do > >> not form a single combined program. > >> > >> Most importantly, Erik de Castro Lopo just told me that he would be > >> happy for us to use libsamplerate again in Audacity if we drop support > >> for opening proprietary plug-in formats (e.g. VST) and use only > >> plug-ins through the interface the OS provides. (He said LADSPA is > >> fine, too, because on Linux it already ships with most distros, and > >> besides, I have yet to see a LADSPA plug-in that's not open-source...) > >> > >> - Dominic > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------- > >> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: > >> Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE > >> LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. > >> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Audacity-devel mailing list > >> Aud...@li... > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: > > Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE > > LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click > > _______________________________________________ > > Audacity-devel mailing list > > Aud...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: > Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE > LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-devel mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel -- Visit my website! http://www.davefancella.com/?event=em I predict that today will be remembered until tomorrow! |
|
From: Dominic M. <do...@au...> - 2004-11-07 23:31:24
|
On Nov 6, 2004, at 9:18 PM, Dave Fancella wrote: > Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't the VST enabler be able to support > VST > plug-in GUIs? No reason, as you describe here: > If I were doing this, and I'm not, I'd first make the VST enabler > public > domain (this would solve *all* licensing issues surrounding it). > Since it's > so small, and the only possible use of it is to make VST plugins work > on > LADSPA hosts, the risk of someone closing up the source and releasing > their > own plugins with it is minimal, while the benefits of someone doing > that are > potentially large (think: VST plugin authors supporting LADSPA hosts). > Then > I'd make "Audacity LADSPA GUI extensions", port a few existing LADSPA > plug-ins to use it, and get invovled with LADSPA (if nobody here is > already > involved there) with working on a GUI standard for LADSPA. Then I'd > make the > VST Enabler support Audacity's GUI extensions. Finally, I'd take some > existing LADSPA plugins, port them to the VST API, and release them, > preferably as public domain also (carefully selecting which ones, of > course) > if possible. This would be excellent. I think it'd be a big undertaking, but I'd be happy to support anyone who wanted to do this. > Is it possible to develop a VST plugin that doesn't need the VST SDK? > Is it > possible for someone to reverse-engineer a VST plug-in that allows > them to > create headers that can be freely distributed? (Like MingW did with > the > winapi headers) Better yet, would it be possible to take an open > source VST > plugin, examine the source (which you have the right to do) and create > new > headers? A little simpler than reverse-engineering a binary plugin. > Having > never looked at VST SDK sources, I could do it if someone sent me such > a > plugin. That sounds legally shaky to me. The part of the plug-in source code that implements the VST API (by subclassing the main Effect class) is clearly a derivative work of the VST API. Inferring the parent class from the effect subclass results in something that's still a derivative work of the VST API, the way I see it. > I assume Erik de Castro's library is GPL itself, is that correct? If > so, the > only say he has in the matter revolves around whether or not Audacity > itself > complies with the GNU GPL, which it wouldn't if it depends on VST and > can't > provide the sources to build Audacity. The way I understand it, you > can't > modify the GNU GPL and still say your program is licensed under the > GNU GPL, > and you can't modify the GNU GPL in such a way to take away rights > that the > GPL itself already grants, you can only add a place to make > exceptions. If > that's correct, then as long as you make it so that Audacity supports > VST > plugins and still complies with the GPL, Erik de Castro can't forbid > you to > use his library. So you should be able to just make an exception in > your own > license (provided by the GPL already) allowing you to link against > VST. Or > you can make VST support optional at build time and provide a binary > that > doesn't support VST and a binary that does, and disclaim ownership of > the > binary that does. :) Of course we could add an exception clause to the GPL for Audacity. But unless an exception is added to libsamplerate, we can't use it. Even if we could by some weird legal argument, Erik believes that this would be violating the license the way he interprets that, and I'm going to respect that. > Legal crap, I realize, but library authors shouldn't > dictate what other libraries application developers can link to, in my > opinion. Authors who don't want that influence use the LGPL. Authors who care about this use the GPL. >> Using the DirectX API will allow us to support plug-ins with native >> GUIs without any licensing issues. Using Audio Units on the Mac >> allows >> us to do the same. >> >> I'm more like Linus Torvalds than Richard Stallman. I'm a pragmatist. >> I don't believe commercial software is evil, or that Microsoft is >> evil. >> I don't like using Windows myself, but I understand that it gets the >> job done for many people. I also know that in order for many people >> to >> take Audacity seriously, they want to be able to use a large >> collection >> of digital effects with fancy graphical GUIs. > > I tend to think that there's a time and place to demand freedom and a > time and > place to let it go. This is a time and place to let it go, because > demanding > freedom guarantees Audacity will, as you say, not be taken seriously > by many > people. If, on the other hand, Audacity is taken seriously by these > people, > then you have the opportunity to gain enough widespread support to > make a > real demand for freedom, and demand the VST SDK license change so you > can > distribute the headers, or remove support for it. Or something like > that. OK: since we want Audacity taken seriously by a certain class of users, we want to add support for the most popular effects plug-ins, complete with GUIs. Of course it would be nice to support VST plug-ins. But since there are issues with that, I propose that we focus our short-term efforts where we can get a lot of bang for the buck: Audio Units and DirectX plug-ins. I don't think it's compromising our ideals to support these formats instead of VST. We're simply starting with the low-hanging fruit. Our new three-pronged strategy is: 1. DirectX and Audio Unit support, with GUIs (soon). 2. Support for real-time effects with automation of all controls (next). 3. Work with the LADSPA community on their GUI standard, and implement it once it's ready. Then, finally, add support for VST GUIs via a new rewritten VST enabler. I don't want to give up on #3. I just think we should be working on #1 and #2 in the meantime. - Dominic > Dave > >> - Dominic >> >> On Oct 31, 2004, at 12:11 PM, Markus Meyer wrote: >>> Dominic, >>> >>> I'm fine with adding support for DirectX, AudioUnit and whatever >>> extends >>> the functionality of Audacity, but I do not agree with Erik here, >>> and I >>> don't think dropping VST support is a good idea. >>> >>> VST is a platform-independent format (at least in theory), is widely >>> used, available in source code, and comes with only a few strings >>> attached (and these strings are only for the developer, not for the >>> user). It's from a comparably small company which has a track record >>> of >>> making high-quality software that serves the user. That the VST SDK's >>> license is not compatible with the GPL is a sad thing. But there are >>> many other licenses which are not compatible with the GPL, and many >>> of >>> them give the user much more freedom (in terms of number of ways to >>> use, >>> extend and distribute the software) than the GPL does. Just consider >>> the >>> original BSD-license with advertising clause, and how many things you >>> can do with BSD-licensed stuff that would be prohibited under the >>> GPL. >>> My point here is that if the GPL is not compatible with some other >>> license, it's as much the GPL's fault as it is the other license's. >>> >>> DirectX on the other hand, is a huge, binary download, which has a >>> use >>> license (EULA) that has nothing to do with the idea of free software. >>> It >>> comes from a company which has been known to violate antitrust laws. >>> It >>> has been developed especially for one platform, although at the time >>> of >>> creation other open standards were already ready to be used, and the >>> free software community would have been more than happy to help >>> create >>> a >>> truly platform-independent, open standard. DirectX is one of the >>> reasons >>> why the number of games that (also) run on Linux and Mac is so small. >>> Some say, it's inclusion in the OS is against the law (as is the >>> inclusion of Internet Explorer into Windows). >>> >>> Additionally, I don't see what Erik has to say about the use of >>> LADSPA. >>> Last time I checked, LADSPA was LGPL (I mean, the specification) and >>> libsamplerate was GPL. These two licenses are supposed to be >>> compatible. >>> I cannot see how the existence of proprietary LADSPA plugins would >>> change this situation, and I also cannot see why it should make a >>> difference if Linux distros come with LADSPA or not. >>> >>> To conclude that, I'm not happy with the VST licensing problems >>> either. >>> But I'd be much less happy if Audacity would commit to using >>> proprietary, closed, patented, binary-only standards like DirectX. >>> The >>> licensing of the VST SDK may not be optimal from a free software >>> developer's point of view, but it is the least evil for the moment. >>> >>> >>> Markus >>> >>> Am Son, den 31.10.2004 schrieb Dominic Mazzoni um 20:00: >>>> I may have touched on this before, but I just wanted to discuss one >>>> major reason to add support for DirectX plug-ins and drop support >>>> for >>>> VST: I believe this clears up any GPL licensing issues. Because >>>> calling DirectX plug-ins and Audio Units amounts to making OS API >>>> calls, as opposed to opening up DLLs and interacting with them, they >>>> do >>>> not form a single combined program. >>>> >>>> Most importantly, Erik de Castro Lopo just told me that he would be >>>> happy for us to use libsamplerate again in Audacity if we drop >>>> support >>>> for opening proprietary plug-in formats (e.g. VST) and use only >>>> plug-ins through the interface the OS provides. (He said LADSPA is >>>> fine, too, because on Linux it already ships with most distros, and >>>> besides, I have yet to see a LADSPA plug-in that's not >>>> open-source...) >>>> >>>> - Dominic >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>>> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: >>>> Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE >>>> LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. >>>> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Audacity-devel mailing list >>>> Aud...@li... >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: >>> Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE >>> LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. >>> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Audacity-devel mailing list >>> Aud...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: >> Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE >> LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. >> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click >> _______________________________________________ >> Audacity-devel mailing list >> Aud...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel > > -- > Visit my website! > http://www.davefancella.com/?event=em > > I predict that today will be remembered until tomorrow! > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: > Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE > LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-devel mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel |
|
From: Steve H. <S.W...@ec...> - 2004-11-08 03:22:32
|
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 11:18:57 -0600, Dave Fancella wrote: > If I were doing this, and I'm not, I'd first make the VST enabler public > domain (this would solve *all* licensing issues surrounding it). Since it's > so small, and the only possible use of it is to make VST plugins work on > LADSPA hosts, the risk of someone closing up the source and releasing their > own plugins with it is minimal, while the benefits of someone doing that are > potentially large (think: VST plugin authors supporting LADSPA hosts). Then > I'd make "Audacity LADSPA GUI extensions", port a few existing LADSPA > plug-ins to use it, and get invovled with LADSPA (if nobody here is already > involved there) with working on a GUI standard for LADSPA. Then I'd make the > VST Enabler support Audacity's GUI extensions. Finally, I'd take some > existing LADSPA plugins, port them to the VST API, and release them, > preferably as public domain also (carefully selecting which ones, of course) > if possible. Thats bascily what DSSI is. LADSPA + MIDI + GUIs. - Steve |
|
From: Alexandre P. <ale...@gm...> - 2004-11-01 08:19:25
|
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 11:00:58 -0800, Dominic Mazzoni <do...@au...> wrote: > I may have touched on this before, but I just wanted to discuss one > major reason to add support for DirectX plug-ins and drop support for > VST: I believe this clears up any GPL licensing issues. Because > calling DirectX plug-ins and Audio Units amounts to making OS API > calls, as opposed to opening up DLLs and interacting with them, they do > not form a single combined program. > > Most importantly, Erik de Castro Lopo just told me that he would be > happy for us to use libsamplerate again in Audacity if we drop support > for opening proprietary plug-in formats (e.g. VST) and use only > plug-ins through the interface the OS provides. (He said LADSPA is > fine, too, because on Linux it already ships with most distros, and > besides, I have yet to see a LADSPA plug-in that's not open-source...) Dominic, While I have a deep respect to Erik and his work, I think that dropping support for VST is not a good idea. Being able to use VST plug-ins is a step to the real world outside OSS community. Dropping VST is a step back. Alexandre |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X