Hi guys, There's also a supposedly reverse-engineered version of the main VST header called "vestige": https://github.com/falkTX/dssi-vst/blob/master/vestige/aeffectx.h (The original source is in the Ardour or LMMS repo I think...)
I think this using this header when implementing a GPLed VST prevents any licensing issues. On the other hand, if nobody from FluidSynth cares, and nobody from Steinberg cares, then there's no licensing issue anyways. :) Thanks, Albert On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:04 AM, David Henningsson <di...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > On 10/31/2012 08:28 AM, S. Christian Collins wrote: > >> I've downloaded them all... every single SoundFont-compatible VSTi I >> could find, and not a single one of them comes anywhere close to the >> accurate SoundFont reproduction of FluidSynth. Apparently, nobody else >> bothers to support SoundFont 2.1 modulators. >> >> I want to give high praise to all of the programmers and contributors >> who have made FluidSynth such a terrific SoundFont synth. To my >> knowledge, FluidSynth and the Sound Blaster Audigy series stand alone as >> the most perfect implementations of the SoundFont spec. The Live! never >> had proper 2.1 modulator support and the X-Fi synth had so many bugs, it >> was unusable! >> >> I have been using SoundFonts for all of my custom sampling work for >> years (since 1994), and I have tried a lot of SoundFont-capable hardware >> and software. As the hardware solutions are going the way of the dodo, I >> think it is safe to proclaim FluidSynth as the current king of all >> SoundFont synths! >> >> Unfortunately, most people will never get to use it for one simple >> reason: FluidSynth does not exist in a popular plugin form such as VST. >> I understand the licensing issues that have prevented the creation of a >> VST instrument based on FluidSynth, but I am running into the hard, cold >> reality that there are no good SoundFont synths available in VST form to >> use in my music production workflow. Most of my music projects now must >> be accomplished in Windows, and trying to use FluidSynth (or Qsynth) as >> standalone applications alongside my music software is painful, to say >> the least. I am having to consider other sampling platforms because of >> this. >> >> Is there any chance that the developers of FluidSynth would be >> interested in modifying the license to allow a VST to be an option, >> perhaps something like what LinuxSampler does? I think it would do a lot >> for the long-term viability of the FluidSynth project. In its current >> state, it is simply too cumbersome to use in my workflow, and many >> others will feel the same way and never give it the time of day. This is >> a terrible shame for such a wonderful synthesizer. >> >> These are my thoughts at 2:23 in the morning... :) >> > > These are my thoughts at more than a week after the rest of you :-) > > I agree that FluidSynth is definitely missing a VSTi and/or LV2 shell. It > shouldn't be too difficult to just wrap qsynth and FluidSynth together and > bundle as either VSTi or LV2. Now if we could just find somebody to do the > work :-) > > As for the licensing issue - with the IANAL disclaimer - I think it should > be solvable by creating a tiny wrapper library, that would be BSD licensed > or similar, between the LGPL FluidSynth code and the proprietary VST > license. (This is also what our Licensing FAQ says currently.) > > // David > > > ______________________________**_________________ > fluid-dev mailing list > fluid-dev@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/**mailman/listinfo/fluid-dev<https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-dev> > -- Albert Santoni Lead Developer | Oscillicious Delicious Audio Tools and Plug-ins Bring new life to classic sounds with SodaSynth VST / AU: http://www.oscillicious.com/sodasynth Slice beats faster with BeatCleaver: http://www.oscillicious.com/beatcleaver
_______________________________________________ fluid-dev mailing list fluid-dev@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-dev
