One simple compromise would be to publish the VST SDK in a stand-alone repository, with corresponding notice of legal rights. Then, developers wishing to work with the SDK could install it by cloning the repo. That way, it would be opt-in for those who need it, as opposed to making open-source maintainers opt out.
Why canât you just get a license from Steinberg like everyone else and download it from THEIR GITHUB account?
2 Likes
If you are âlegally scaredâ, contact Steinberg with your particular worries.
This thread contains a lot of speculation that you can easily check out with Steinberg.
Why bug Roli and Juce with it here?
3 Likes
So bored of this thread now.
Steinberg specifically agreed that itâs OK for us to leave it in our history.
If anyone imagines that by forking JUCE, all the code in the history suddenly belongs to you⊠then I think our lawyers would have a few words to say on that subject!
So, on the assumption that everything in the JUCE history that deals with the VST SDK belongs to us, itâs therefore not your problem. Go and get on with your life.
We have no intention of rewriting the JUCE repoâs history to erase it.
So even if we removed the SDK today, any future forks will always have the SDK buried in the history.
So either deal with that, or donât fork it (publicly). Your choice. Either way, canât imagine that thisâd be of any real inconvenience to anyone at all, in practice. And if you think it is, you need to talk to Steinberg, not us.
No, the fact that you rewrite the history to remove all reference to that file.