Add new comment

I voted :).

There are many things I don't understand about LV2, such as the concept of URIs.
My knowledge is very limited. I don't understand why there is an http:// there.
Does the plugin stop working if the computer is not connected to the internet?
Obviously not. so? what data does it send? And why does it send data?
Did someone ask me if I want to send data to a URI?
but is data really sent? And if not, why is there an http:// instead of a path to where my plugin is hosted?

Going back to what I said before, regarding the documentation suggestions for external files and encapsulation I think I need to make some corrections.

What I propose about providing information about plugins hosted on other host plugins is crazy. Let's imagine someone has put a Carla Host LV2 inside a Carla Host LV2 inside a Carla Host LV2 inside... how do you manage that to automate a backup?
Likewise the SFZ, because they in turn have many intricate dependencies (without entering into the weight of a library that can be tens of gigabytes).

So, I stick to:
_1
External resources must be automatically documented. Audio, Midi, plugins, and their direct dependencies (sfz, sf2, wav...) and maybe presets.
If the dependencies in turn have dependencies (wavs as in the case of an sfz), ensuring integrity is a matter of how the person organizes their libraries.

_2
Top-level plugins (not hosted ones) should be able to be encapsulated, but their external resources should not be.
This part must be done by the person making commitment decisions, and depends exclusively on the way they organize their libraries.
It is not as simple as in graphic arts, in music there are nested dependencies of several levels, sometimes indeterminate.
In graphic arts there are only one-level dependencies.

So I'm going to better study what I need the application to provide me to be able to share projects and make reliable backups.
When I have it I will share it.

---

LV2 is disappointing me as a free format. CLAP looks good.

I only know JSFX from learning about it, I have not used it. I think Carla supports it.
And there is a host on github that I haven't tried.
But I think it is the only format that really fits a free concept.

It is distributed uncompiled, anyone can read and modify it on the fly and learn in the process. It is text, it is easily hostable, copyable, modifiable and distributable.

It allows quick predefined interfaces (sliders, boxes...) and complex interfaces.
It is well documented.
It has an extensive community.

However...

With Reaper they indicate, there is a paid use copyright. (Although they do not make it clear what you are committing to and what they are committing to with the purchased license, they only specify that you have to buy it. They use a different pricing model depending on your earnings, which implicitly implies that they take rights over the exploitation of your own copyright and what you decide to do with it, which I consider one of the most unfair and least legal license models there is).
But with JSFX... they do not indicate the format license anywhere, or at least I have not found it.

And this doesn't look good.

To this day they have not opposed others creating hosts, they allow the format to be used without restriction...
But what about tomorrow?
I don't want to record a song, and in 10 years they demand that I have to pay for my pluging or my song, because they have changed their mind about their plugins formats.

In conclusion, I believe that the free plugin format of the future should have the properties of JSFX, but with a clearly free license.