peter KIRNOct 29

Open Steinberg: VST3 and ASIO SDKs now have open source licenses. And that's significant for free music and sound tools, plus a promised collaboration with OBS.

https://cdm.link/open-steinberg-vst3-and-asio/

Really curious what folks think of this and if it solves a problem for you. #opensource @OBSProject #vst #windows #linux

Show threadJef VerbeeckOct 29
@pkirn @OBSProject If this makes it possible to use my favourite VSTs in Linux, then this makes leaving OSX even more tempting!
Show threadPaulDavisTheFirstNov 3

@Jefverbeeck @pkirn @OBSProject it really has no impact on plugin availability for Linux

What impacts that is the willingness of plugin developers to build and distribute their plugins for Linux. Many (not all!) will not do so, even if they use a cross platform plugin toolkit like JUCE to create their plugins

You could get VST3 plugins for Linux already - from developers who build and distribute their plugins for that platform

I do not see this changing the minds of those who currently do not

Show threadpeter KIRNNov 3
@PaulDavisTheFirst @Jefverbeeck @OBSProject also correct me if I'm wrong, though, Paul -- while it doesn't impact *plug-in* availability, I think it does impact hosting? For instance, cross-platform environments like Pd or Godot Engine, I think, have hit this wall when they can't make use of the SDK.
Show threadPaulDavisTheFirstNov 3
@pkirn the VST3 SDK was already usable by GPL'ed projects. We've been using it in Ardour for several years.
Show threadDRMRNov 4
@PaulDavisTheFirst @pkirn I can't imagine why Godot would need VST plugins (there are better ways to do game audio), but for Pd there is the `vstplugin~` external that could use the GPL-ed sdk just fine as well.
Show threadpeter KIRNNov 4
@dreamer @PaulDavisTheFirst Right, and there's where I'm hazy. Maybe there is some case where MIT licensing opens up some specific distribution/packaging or modification use case (or, uh, something)... or maybe *not*, and this was just about convincing people to use VST 3 as opposed to licensing that allows them to abandon an SDK when it's deprecated, a la VST2.
Show threadRobin Gareus

@pkirn @dreamer @PaulDavisTheFirst
The difference is mostly a philosophical one.

GPL protects the rights of the user. User needs to be able to recompile/link/redistribute the plugin(s).

MIT license on the other hand offers freedom to developers without imposing any significant restrictions.

In general interfaces should be liberally licensed (MIT, BSD, ISC,..), In the EU they cannot be (C)ed anyway.

Nov 4 at 3:49pmWeb
Show threadpeter KIRNNov 4

@x42 @dreamer @PaulDavisTheFirst oh yeah, I get the difference between MIT and GPLv3.

I asked Steinberg for some more comment on this. I had to go back to double-check I didn't write anything inaccurate, but I think just slightly *misleading* to say "this is a big deal" when, because the SDK was available before, "has been a big deal" is more accurate. Ahem.

Based on past experience, I'm guessing there's some very particular problem this solves for, uh, someone.

Show threadpeter KIRNNov 4

@x42 @dreamer @PaulDavisTheFirst Okay, yeah -- Steinberg clarified. I mean, to me, having a more permissive license without the dev agreement, logo requirements, etc., is all a good thing. I get that there is no technical advantage to FLOSS when you already had the GPLv3 SDK.

So yes, their argument is entirely made to proprietary VST devs and obviously VST2 devs who felt burned.

Show threadPaulDavisTheFirstNov 4
@pkirn @x42 @dreamer here's an analysis I 100% agree with: https://librearts.org/2025/11/steinberg-relicenses-vst3-and-asio/
VST3 becomes open-source, ASIO goes GPL-compatible

Let's talk about what VST3 and ASIO relicensing by Steinberg really mean

Libre Arts
Show threadpeter KIRNNov 7

@PaulDavisTheFirst @x42 @dreamer

I agree with all of that, too.