http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120502083035371

That is very appropriate. Thanks for the news, Rory.
Oeyvind

2012/5/4 Rory Walsh :
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120502083035371
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>



-- 

Oeyvind Brandtsegg
Professor of Music Technology
NTNU
7491 Trondheim
Norway
Cell: +47 92 203 205

http://flyndresang.no/
http://www.partikkelaudio.com/
http://soundcloud.com/brandtsegg
http://soundcloud.com/t-emp

Thanks for the update. I've been following this case and the related
Oracle vs. Google case with interest. The Oracle case is now with the
jury, I believe.

This is directly relevant to Csound because of its vst4cs opcodes and
CsoundVST. There is an FST re-implementation of the VST binary
interface and protocol used by the digital audio workstation Ardour.
The case law now seems to be leaning towards authorizing this kind of
re-implementation.

If the Google vs. Oracle case is decided similarly, then I propose
that Csound either re-implement the VST SDK itself, or re-do vst4cs
and CsoundVST to use FST.

Regards,
Mike

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Rory Walsh  wrote:
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120502083035371
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>



-- 
Michael Gogins
Irreducible Productions
http://www.michael-gogins.com
Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com