Hi, I know this has been debated ad nauseam everywhere, but my point is quite subtle and different, please read on.
Suppose I am totally against VST3 for reasons I am not going to discuss here, and I would like to still distribute my plugins as VST2.
But I can't legally do that since I signed my agreement with Steinberg after 2018.
I am using SynthEdit (for some unclear reason, unlike Flowstone users, SynthEdit users are required to sign a VST agreement, but this is another topic).
SynthEdit has a peculiarity: the plugins generated are "polymorphic", they are detected by any DAW as VST2 if they have a .dll extension, or as VST3 is they have a .vst3 extension.
But in both cases, the binaries contain VST3 labels, not VST2 labels: if you inspect them with a resource editor, or simply invoking Properties/Details in Windows explorer, they are identified as "VST3 plugin". So, they present themselves as VST3 plugins in both cases.
On the light of that:
1. I really wonder if distributing such a plugin with its .dll extension, which will behave like a VST2 but technically is perhaps more a VST3, is still deemed illegal. Consider that in this case I would NEVER advertise, label or present the plugin as "VST2" but only more generically as "VST", or I could even omit the "VST" word completely
2. I also wonder if, on the contrary, it is even illegal to distribute such a VST3 with the .vst3 extension and which behaves like a VST3, given it can virtually behave as a VST2 if its extension is changed to .dll, which implies it *must* also contain VST2 SDK parts (which would be illegal) !
I hope in some relevant replies and not in an infinite thread, which I won't be able to follow any more![;)]( "Wink")
Unfortunately, I have found a local lawyer specialised in software and licenses and who could help me, but she asked eur 900 to study the case, which I cannot afford of course.
Thanks in advance.
Suppose I am totally against VST3 for reasons I am not going to discuss here, and I would like to still distribute my plugins as VST2.
But I can't legally do that since I signed my agreement with Steinberg after 2018.
I am using SynthEdit (for some unclear reason, unlike Flowstone users, SynthEdit users are required to sign a VST agreement, but this is another topic).
SynthEdit has a peculiarity: the plugins generated are "polymorphic", they are detected by any DAW as VST2 if they have a .dll extension, or as VST3 is they have a .vst3 extension.
But in both cases, the binaries contain VST3 labels, not VST2 labels: if you inspect them with a resource editor, or simply invoking Properties/Details in Windows explorer, they are identified as "VST3 plugin". So, they present themselves as VST3 plugins in both cases.
On the light of that:
1. I really wonder if distributing such a plugin with its .dll extension, which will behave like a VST2 but technically is perhaps more a VST3, is still deemed illegal. Consider that in this case I would NEVER advertise, label or present the plugin as "VST2" but only more generically as "VST", or I could even omit the "VST" word completely
2. I also wonder if, on the contrary, it is even illegal to distribute such a VST3 with the .vst3 extension and which behaves like a VST3, given it can virtually behave as a VST2 if its extension is changed to .dll, which implies it *must* also contain VST2 SDK parts (which would be illegal) !
I hope in some relevant replies and not in an infinite thread, which I won't be able to follow any more
Unfortunately, I have found a local lawyer specialised in software and licenses and who could help me, but she asked eur 900 to study the case, which I cannot afford of course.
Thanks in advance.
Statistics: Posted by elena2 — Fri Jan 19, 2024 11:14 pm — Replies 1 — Views 37