LinuxMusicians

Luc wrote:Hermann Seib stated that clearly where? When? I can't possibly keep up with the entire Internet.

tramp wrote: Hermann Seib is the developer of one of the first (if not the first ever) open source VST hosts.
http://www.hermannseib.com/english/vsthost.htm
The reason why he didn't open his source any more, are people like you.

Hermann Seib wrote:Originally, I made VSTHost available including the complete source code. Since I had to find out that (parts of) it made their way into other people's programs, and that without even mentioning my contribution, the open source variant has been frozen. I continue to add bug fixes to the existing code base, but new features won't make their way into it any more.

That is another project. The vague reason provided on the NetVST project page is some problem with SDKs. If the real reason is the one you say it is, then the alleged problem with the SDKs is indeed a lame excuse. If.

Luc wrote:People are free to release their code under whatever license they like.

Let him be then, he doesn't need to justify why it is not open source, it simply isn't.

sysrqer wrote:

Luc wrote:People are free to release their code under whatever license they like.

Let him be then, he doesn't need to justify why it is not open source, it simply isn't.

I agree with you there, but when the developer posts about it in FAQ and isn't clear about the reason, it gives people false hopes.

What, there is a problem that prevents you from releasing the code? Well, what is it then? Pray tell, maybe we can find a way around it.

If a developer states the real reason and it is a real obstacle, it's the end of it.
If a developer states no reason, everyone assumes it's proprietary and it's the end of it.
If a developer states a false or vague reason, some people will wonder.