Hi Will,

I've been looking at the Apple Developer Program, as a means of signing VST3s (and later AUs) for the Mac (a tester of mine on an Intel Mac has the , and also stumbled across the Steinberg VST3 SDK license agreement, which appears to have changed with the move to VST3 - if I understand it correctly, if one is providing VST3 binaries with the source code too, this meets the GPLv3 license and so the Proprietary License Agreement doesn't need to be signed. One only needs sign this if: a) one is releasing plugins as VST2, or b) one is releasing binaries, but without the accompanying source code. Apparently though, one must also release their source under the GPLv3 license.

So I was checking my repo on GitHub, and realised I'd put up a Creative Commons license. Wondering whether I should change this, I wanted to check the ASPiK framework license. I noticed that there's a clause that the name ASPiK, or that of any of its contributors, may not be used to imply endorsement of derived products.

I'd named my repo "ASPiKProjects" to help me differentiate between RackAFX projects, and any later project types such as Juce, for example, or any I build directly using the VST3 SDK. I also have a repo "ASPiKCommon", where I have factored out a few common files into which I've placed my own custom fx & sub-controller classes.

I'd just like to know that I'm not in violation of any license terms.

Would you be so kind, when you have a sec, to take a quick look at my repos, and inform me if you see anything which in your opinion would violate the terms of your license:

https://github.com/DoomyDwyer/ASPiKProjects

https://github.com/DoomyDwyer/ASPiKCommon

I'd like also to make the statement that I'm acting in good faith, and any violations would be a result of legal naivety, rather than malicious intent.

Thanks.

Thanks for getting back so quickly Will, and a Happy New Year!

Let's hope 2022 will be a more normal year than the last couple of years have been. Well, there's no harm in hoping 

Steve