This has turned into a very interesting read.  It's obvious Azslow doesn't want to ave to apy for advice, I wonder if there is some type of legal forum in the EU where he could post this question and get some help.  I think his translator would be amazing and I'd certainly be willing to pay for a copy.

Musikman
The thing to note here as Brando mentioned, is that a tool to help current users migrate their Sonar Projects over to another DAW would be most useful now and in the near future, but probably not far beyond that. If I were to use such a tool, once all my projects were successfully transferred over, I would likely no longer ever need to use the tool again, unless I keep creating new projects using Sonar, if it hasn't already become obsolete.

While some people are in kind of "panic", I guess many just continue making music. I see such tool as :
* an "airbag". I normally feel myself better when I can use the information when I need it, including another application (in my case,  that is the source code with another compiler. I have more programs then songs ). That does not mean I permanently switch programs I use, but just a possibility to do this without a pain.
* backup. When some project is over, the preservation comes in question. Without converter, everything should be exported as MIDI/WAV/FX presets. That takes time and still loose integrity. If opening in other application more or less works, open/check/save in another format takes almost no time and I know the information is "safe". Also no reason to hurry even after switching DAWs, when everything is one click away from the transfer.
** if sufficient features can be transported, learning. By opening something known, it is easer to understand how it looks like in the "foreign" environment.  But I am far away from that stage.
 

Did I miss it, or did anyone mention which of Sonar's Plugins we would be able to load into a different DAW?

Here is one of the posts... http://forum.cakewalk.com/FindPost/3718399

subtlearts
why in this or any world would a large company, up to its ears in debt, waste money on lawyers to try to prove a questionable legal point, in a foreign country governed by EU law which is definitely more focused on consumer protection than US law, in order to defend their rights to software they have already abandoned, evidently because it was losing money, by going after an individual who has pretty clearly stated he is no intention of making a commercial product? Ok, he's suggested he might make it donationware. But again, he's not trying to reverse engineer the code, or break the copy protection. He's trying to produce a tool to help people extract our own intellectual property from a container format that Gibson has already abandoned.

Perfectly said. 

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Here is the EULA. Note the standard reverse assembly sections. http://store.steampowered.com/eula/241070_eula_0
So in theory this isn't kosher to do. Besides it would be incredibly difficult to actually do a full translator. Several years ago I was collaborating with a company who wanted to do just this and started writing up a specification. However since our file format is a modern object oriented chunked based (forward and backwards compatible) format, its very hard to write up without providing the actual code. Reverse assembling the file would be prohibitively difficult since each object has its own persistence history of versioned chunks.
 
I'm impressed that you want to try doing this but even if I wanted to do it myself it would be incredibly hard. I wouldn't recommend wasting your life on this :) Even something basic like pulling volume levels and parameter info for tracks would be very tricky since that data is all in a sub document within the project file. Each parameter is keyed by a bunch of guids etc which makes it pretty hard to find.

Update. After such recommendation, I have decided to check that I can get "essential pack" of parameters before I start to use it (converting to something different). By "essential" I mean that even in case I will stuck with something else, I do not see that as a show stopper (much simpler to fix by hands after then "essential" staff).
And at the moment I have:
* strip information (no fader/pan levels, sends nor routing... I guess that will is not difficult to retrieve, but not "essential")
* clips. Audio and MIDI, theoretically also grooved. With core parameters (fades, position, lane, mute). No AudioSnap or extended grooving parameters (not "essential").
* FX chains (strip and clip). Down to "CW preset" (as found in SPP and other places), that is the only part to clarify before "essential" is complete. But strictly speaking that is not CWP.
* SynthRack (the same as with FX chains).
* automations. Clip and Tracks, standard and FX parameters.
I have not found anything "incredibly hard", not even simply "hard".
Also, while I was using X2 CWP files, the result shows no problem with Platinum CWP files (not yet intensively checked).
 

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]

azslow3
So, in short. Are you "do not recommend to do this" or "forbid to do this"? That is the major question.

Its not up to me azslow, I'm not a lawyer and Cakewalk the company has stopped. However Gibson or another company that potentially acquires the assets and wants to continue the product could take issue with an unauthorized translator even if you could manage to do one so you would have to be prepared to deal with that.
You are a smart dude and I'm sure you could get far with the basic transfer of tracks and audio and maybe even plugin data but a full blown translator that can take a project and make it sound the same in another DAW is a pipe dream. Even the guys who were in the business of doing just that who we were working with couldn't do it.

Since I still do not see technical problems, original question is the only unclear preposition for final decisions.
 
CW/Gibson is giving Home Studio for free and was giving CA-2A for free. Why not allow some translator? Also in case CW wants "protect" some parts (I have hard time to imagine which, but still), do not want the translator is open source (that I can imagine) or has some other wishes about it, we can discuss that.
 
The alternative... I was reading EULA several times. Still I have not found anything which can be interpreted as forbidding to open CWP (or other OUTPUT) files in a HEX editor. Corresponding restriction unambiguously mention "the product or any part of it". Output files was not in the product (I was not using CW demo files). And I have not opened in hex editor, debugger, tracer, etc. ANYTHING except my own generated CWP with strictly my own generated clips.
Finally, I am convinced now that in EU opening files which contain no code and which are not encrypted can not be forbidden even explicitly.
 
But I would prefer to do it in "clean" conditions, if that is possible.

FWIW Azslow3, in my opinion as a non-lawyer, the closest comparison that can be made to your situation is the one that  someone made earlier with Microsoft Word and Corel Word Perfect . Both of the respective companies (and others as well) have developed code to read and write each other's output file formats (.doc and .wpd), and as far as I know, nobody sued anybody over it. They sued each other for different things, such as copying Word's ribbon concept in Word Perfect, but not over reading and writing each other's output file formats. So, again in my opinion, I think you are safe to continue this quest if you so desire, and I hope you succeed.
 
By the way, are you still planning to port AZController to Reaper? I'm hoping you are, because even with an existing dedicated third-party app for the Alphatrack in Reaper, there are a few things that need fixing, and I'll bet AZController could do it!

I've gotten into the habit of converting all of my MIDI files into WAVs and doing the mix using all WAV files.  This way it doesn't matter what DAW I find myself using years from now. I might have different plugins, but I'll always have the WAVs.
 
John B.

PSS...donations are not payment...so another grey area might be a path...or freely distributed for...again so many grey areas.
 
not because it is hard...but because some can do...and if they love what they do , just to do it because they can...why stop them?...to the moon and beyond?...a president once said...?...question is was it hollywood made>?<grey areas eh?...yeah greys...but let it not stop us from doing good works because it is the right thing to do...is give because it is in us to do also...hope!
 

embellish
verb  em·bel·lish  \ im-ˈbe-lish \
Popularity: Top 40% of words |Updated on: 19 Dec 2017
TELL US ABOUT YOURSELF





TRENDING NOW:surrogate motherfurloughpopinjaylibelSEE ALL


Tip: Synonym Guide 
Examples: embellish in a Sentence
Editor's Note: Did You Know? 

•   
•   
•   
•    
    

Definition of embellishtransitive verb
1: to make beautiful with ornamentation : decorate 

a bookembellished with illustrations

2: to heighten the attractiveness of by adding decorative or fanciful details : enhance 

embellished our account of the trip

Righteousness...another word of the day...you know lawyers must uphold..the people's best interest...not the thing!
 

Now if Gibson owned this company..and murdered it..yet holds their and our user interest at bay....not honouring the agreements to carry over onto what they say is owned by them as code paid for life time updates...the licence is also owned by user under agreement to have life time updates which were paid in advance forwarded for life of usery of user licences paid for!...fixing any bugs in, and any to come by change of os or updates of other in machine or parts drivers or other things of the machine the codex works or kind of works upon , yet has bugs, or bugs are in to needs constant fixes for!.As has been witnessed since its conception as needing!..By law of their own words owned, and agreed upon...so the licence is bound by those agreed, and the third parties not held but own or are tied there in bound of said agreements!...user should not walk away to another signage or port over ...but stand as user, and force the Principle!

See it liken this...if some did pay for life time updates...and agreement was met by these paid parties...it does not matter who updates the licence or the code...as long as it is for life done as agreed....By those parties agreeing!...if they walk away from that agreement ...They break it...But if you fix it the code, you honour the part agreed to...then no law can sue, no party on its own can take that ..if they broke the agreement of, and  broke up due to capital, which is not a living entity or reason to disband the company and entities whom were in that agreement of with.....User has rights to agreements honoured by any of the paid and signed to that agreement was was offered as..is honoured by...Entities of the living and bound by law...Parties of...and in there in...You have rights to updates....for life!
 

I think it's written in French and the translated.

ampfixer
I think it's written in French and the translated.

I think it's written under the influence, and not translated

azslow3

Brando

ampfixer
I think it's written in French and the translated.

I think it's written under the influence, and not translated

I do not think that is the first time you see his posts. There are most of the time cryptic, but have sense.
I guess this bunch of posts has the following meaning:
"If Gibson/CW think it is ok to sell Lifetime Updates and abandon the development in less then a year, just using the fact they have (almost...) never promised particular nor minimal length of the "lifetime", following the same logic, since in EULA nothing is explicitly written about any output files, it should be ok to parse them." In other words, parsing CWP is not more "gray" then what CW has done with users.

 
Alexey, you're a more patient man than I am (though to be honest that's not really saying much) but I suspect you have it about right. I sometimes have a hard time ploughing through "cryptic" posts - whether they are deliberately obfuscated or merely the product of (how to say this?) a freely wandering poetic mind. A long time ago I had a friend who was a technical writer, and she told me her method of assessing clarity in writing was something along the lines of, "Do you want me to understand what you are saying? If so, make it clear and precise; if not, f%$k off and stop wasting my time!"... This always struck me as good advice, though it hasn't kept me from making some rambling posts of my own from time to time...
 

Normal audio routing is clarified (including sends), I still have to look at SynthRack (Audio input, Synth audio and MIDI in general is not in audio patch-bay). I plan to skip DM, freeze and MIDI track settings till after the first prototype, but I have decided that general routing is good to have from the beginning.

Again, you're a patient man!... By the way I'd be very happy to do some testing for you whenever you get to an alpha stage, and I'll even try to give you, ermm, clear and precise feedback!

Yes, your post indirectly alerted me to it. And yes, I've noticed it doesn't seem to handle discretized controls very well. Alexey's plugin does that and pretty much everything else, so hopefully it makes the transition at some point! In the meantime, the AT Pro plugin is pretty good.