This is a good idea for noobs who cannot figure out where to put their VSTs
or how they work. On the other hand my VST folder isn't inside my LMMS
folder and I had never any problems figuring VSTs out. If LMMS is going to
ship with a VST it must be an instrument or sound extremely useful or
extreme
If you're going to do this, I definitely suggest some sort of piano.
On 14/02/14 02:26, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:
Can we discuss whether or not to ship at least one VST instrument with
LMMS?
I think this would be of great benefit to the music community since it
will help demonstrate how to use
*correction:
*FreeST links:*
http://www.joebutton.co.uk/fst/ (5 yrs old)
http://repo.or.cz/w/fst.git (3 yrs old)
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=59524 (recent)
- tres.finocchi...@gmail.com
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Tres Finocchiaro <
tres.finocchi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the
>
> If there's a clean-room implementation of the VST API these days
It seems there is something called FST or FreeST which achieves this.
It addresses the direct violation by using the steinberg headers.
According to this message board, it was originally written by an LMMS
developer. Is this
Oops, sent from the wrong address this morning...
On 02/13/2014 10:26 AM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:
> Can we discuss whether or not to ship at least one VST instrument with LMMS?
My (layman's) understanding is that the VST SDK is incompatible with the
GPL. I know that Wine is LGPL, so maybe because
@Rob you bring up some good points.
But if a new user isn't aware of a VST he wants to use, why would we push
> him that way?
>From a user's perspective: Professionals use them, so it's part of the
culture. That culture won't be changed anytime soon, so out-of-the-box
VSTs would help advertise
On 02/13/2014 08:43 PM, Rob Kudla wrote:
> On 02/13/2014 01:23 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:
>> This means no VSTs that use the steinberg sdk (most likely all VSTs on the
>> market) can be bundled, correct?
> That's correct. They'd have to use a clean-room reimplementation of the VST
> API, and I don
On 02/13/2014 01:23 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:
> This means no VSTs that use the steinberg sdk (most likely all VSTs on the
> market) can be bundled, correct?
That's correct. They'd have to use a clean-room reimplementation of the VST
API, and I don't know of such a thing.
However, a secondary p
Ok, I'm responding to my own post here:
http://music.columbia.edu/pipermail/music-dsp/2004-October/061767.html
I think this does a good job of explaining it. It's the steinberg header
files (required for compilation) which break GPL and are mandatory for
compilation.
This means no VSTs that use
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Vesa wrote:
> Any such plugin almost certainly will not be bundled as a binary
>
I'm confused as to how "certain" you are. There are two scenarios we are
talking about 1. Bundling binary 2. Wait for LinuxVST.
Scenario #1 is what I am advocating for and scena
On 02/13/2014 06:49 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:
>
> I'd say that we shouldn't distribute a platform-dependent plugin,
> even if we do have the means to run it under a compatibility
> layer. And I say this as someone who does use windowsVST's in LMMS
> from time to time.
>
>
> Thanks
> I'd say that we shouldn't distribute a platform-dependent plugin, even if
> we do have the means to run it under a compatibility layer. And I say this
> as someone who does use windowsVST's in LMMS from time to time.
>
Thanks for your feedback on this matter. Are you aware of any progress or
ti
On 02/13/2014 05:53 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:
>
> Also, there needs to be both Linux and Windows versions, and we
> need to implement LinuxVST support first...
>
>
> This line confuses me. The DLLs work currenly on x86 and x64
> architectures in both *nix and Windows platforms.
>
> Are y
>
> Also, there needs to be both Linux and Windows versions, and we need
> to implement LinuxVST support first...
This line confuses me. The DLLs work currenly on x86 and x64 architectures
in both *nix and Windows platforms.
Are you saying you would be opposed to distributing the DLL in favor o
On 02/13/2014 05:26 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:
> Can we discuss whether or not to ship at least one VST instrument with
> LMMS?
>
> I think this would be of great benefit to the music community since it
> will help demonstrate how to use the VST plugin without the "blind"
> Google searching that o
Can we discuss whether or not to ship at least one VST instrument with LMMS?
I think this would be of great benefit to the music community since it will
help demonstrate how to use the VST plugin without the "blind" Google
searching that one is usually subject to when looking for VSTs.
The would
16 matches
Mail list logo
