From: Chris C. <ca...@al...> - 2005-02-02 09:03:14
|
On Wednesday 02 Feb 2005 00:23, cco...@ch... wrote: > So basically my plugin couldn't be included with muse because section > 3 says you need to include all the code necessary to build the > program and the steinberg VST SDK headers cannot be. Right. > It seems to me it must be workable, otherwise muse is violating the > GPL also since it uses fst.h in muse/driver/jack.cpp and muse/vst.cpp By my reading, MusE _is_ violating the GPL. I don't think anyone cares very much, fortunately. > An idea: > > Distribute my plugin so that it builds in a manner that does not use > dssi-vst by default. And provide additional licensing terms in its > subdirectory that must be agreed to before building with VST support. I don't think that sort of hack is very helpful -- it only means that applications built with the non-GPL-compliant support compiled in cannot be redistributed as binaries. Writing an exemption into the MusE license wouldn't help either, as it's still bound by the GPL license of Qt. In the case of dssi-vst this is rather moot, since it's a plugin, so it doesn't actually have to be compiled with the application code. (Whether that's true of your MESS version, I don't know -- do you need MusE to build it?) I am inclined to think if you stuck it in a separate directory built separately, and plastered the dssi-vst license on it, that would probably be fine. Or you could just distribute it separately from MusE in the first place. (This sort of shenanigan is one reason we don't attempt to bundle anything like dssi-vst with Rosegarden.) Or you can wait for Steinberg to change the VST SDK license! Chris |