Michael Gogins wrote:
>
> Copyright is never legally or politically intended to prevent
> inter-operation and in fact using the exact interfaces in the VST 2 plugin
> architecture for a SAOL plugin would be perfectly legal - it is only illegal
> to simply copy the header file or to cut and paste its code. I should
> imagine that reading the VST header file, then retyping it with different
> variable names and a different layout, would be quite legal.
I've wondered about this, since I would like to re-implement the VST interface
on Linux. I asked on the VST mailing list and received no response. I don't
want to port their code, I want to write a compatible implementation with
an LGPL license.
However, part of the license you agree to in order to download
the source and documentation states that you will not reverse engineer
the specification or apps based on the specification.
It would be much nicer if they would separate the specification from the
source. Thus I could download the specs without being "tainted" by having
the source files. No one could claim that I have stolen IP.
Perhaps a "clean room" approach is in order, since there is no NDA implied
in the license. Some who has downloaded the spec (black room) could work
with someone who hasn't (white room), archiving all correspondence.
White room could then implement the specification with clean conscience (or
legal facsimile).
Thomas
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 10 2000 - 12:15:33 EDT