Jucetice Forum

actually, juced is based on JUCE, so it is not more a problem, unless Julian fix the juce license. Our plugins actually are written with the JUCE interface not the AudioEffectX from steinberg. So the problem could be only the juce wrapper... which is Julian business

thanx man

ps. from Steinb0rg license, it is prohibited to reverse engineer the vstsdk (and vestige is clearly that).

I think you're right and wrong on this. IANAL, but I read a bit here and there about the VST licensing problems, and my (informed) view of it is like this:

The Vestige developers partly reverse engineered some binaries they found, and partly they gathered the stuff from information freely available from Steinb0rk's website. They might have never read the VST SDK's license agreement, and they certainly didn't accept it, because they never used the SDK to develop Vestige! That's why the "anti reverse-engineering clause" doesn't apply to them.

I'm pretty sure on the following:

- The GPL requires that if you distribute a GPL'd binary, you have to distribute the *complete* source code required for building it, too, which would include the VST SDK
- The VST SDK's license *forbids* distributing it
- Juce (and therefore Juced, and everything built with Juced) is licensed under the GPL
- If you create a VST binary with Juce(d) and redistribute it, you can't make the complete source available. Therefore you are violating the GPL! :-|

Maybe one way to work around this would be to ask Jules if he could re-license Juce under a slightly more permissive license which doesn't require that *all* source code is made available. But I think that the better thing to do would be to create something VST-compatible which can be used with all open source licenses!!

Last edited by jkroll (2010-03-01 16:36:25)

i should disable by default the compilation of VSTs enabled products (vst plugins or jost vst support), and enabling it only on demand.
the next step is to build juced on top of juce, but as an external api (ie a different library) and do not ship it (so we don't have any reference to VST headers in our code, which is true only for jost actually cause plugins are written on top of juce).

Well this would "solve" the licensing problems with Juce/Juced. But what good is a library for writing VSTs if you can't legally give the created VSTs to anybody?

The only solutions I can see are
A) re-license Juce under a more permissive license (like BSD) or
B) write a VST-compatible set of plugin headers and customize the plugin wrapper to work with it.

IMHO B) is the much cooler option.

kRAkEn/gORe wrote:

...and i won't do the latter.

Short and to the point. So you don't care, right?

I wonder why you ported and wrote all these VSTs then.

by the way, i see you included wolpertinger 0.1 in your svn repo, but without attribution. would you be so kind and include my README file? use this one from svn.

http://svn.tuxfamily.org/viewvc.cgi/tum … ME?view=co

thanks in advance!

Last edited by jkroll (2010-03-03 21:07:15)