Just Another Bloke
I had 53 tracks but 4 were AUX tracks and they did not get created.

Tracks without clips are skipped for now. Till I convert routing. That stay second in the priority list, right after FXes.
 

I got an empty 50th track. And I got one pan automation on track 49 (which I do have).

Empty track is some "system" track. When not empty, it is populated with some envelopes (and then visible after conversion). I have not analyzed what it is.
 

I am reasonably happy with the results so far.  

I did get a smaller project to open and the volume and pan info was transferred to Reaper. Make sure when you play back that Reaper is set to Trim/Read or Read to see the changes reflected in the envelope curves. So far so good with testing this weekend!!
 

If i had to guess, you would likely lose a court case of this in the US. On the other hand that case is not likely to come. If you attempted this with an active product like Ableton live there would be a better chance to actually test the legality. In this forum you will get positive encouragement becsuse this forum has a history of leaning towards legal loopholes if it benefits them. Not a critiscism but an observation based on several precedents. I highly doubt Gibson cares if someone allows sonar files to be read by anoyjer product since they have bigger financial concerns that would not be even partially fixed via litigation over this.

dubdisciple
If i had to guess, you would likely lose a court case of this in the US. On the other hand that case is not likely to come. If you attempted this with an active product like Ableton live there would be a better chance to actually test the legality. In this forum you will get positive encouragement becsuse this forum has a history of leaning towards legal loopholes if it benefits them. Not a critiscism but an observation based on several precedents. I highly doubt Gibson cares if someone allows sonar files to be read by anoyjer product since they have bigger financial concerns that would not be even partially fixed via litigation over this.

The end user owns the content that they have created with a software product.  It is a separate issue from the software license agreement.  I don't think anybody would disagree with this statement.
 
Having ongoing access to that content should not be considered a loophole, but rather a right of ownership!
 
Nothing that I have seen discussed in this thread, and others, seems to imply in any way that recovering one's creative works from a proprietary file format infringes on any copyrights or patents of the software application owner. 
 
I use LibreOffice rather than Microsoft Office, and it can open MS Word and Excel files.  Sometimes not perfect, but it is nice to know that if Microsoft went out of business tomorrow, I could still read my files...

John Fogerty won his case, George Harrison did not.
 
If it went to a U.S. court (highly unlikely) it would come down to the ability of a judge/jury to understand that Alexy is not reverse engineering the software (the UI or it's internal logic on how to create tracks, processing logic such as exports etc ad-auseum). He is primarily extracting user owned/created content (i.e. wav files and MIDI events that do NOT belong to Cakewalk Inc.) from within the SONAR specified storage areas. Yes it could be argued that the .cwp is propriety and he may not be allowed to read it (i.e. loosely considered reverse engineering the format) but again, he is not reading it to recreate the software, but only to extract those user actions that arrived at an output (automation, pan, level, FXs/presets and routings etc.)
 
Just my .0000000000002 bitcoin.

dubdisciple
If i had to guess, you would likely lose a court case of this in the US.

I have not found a single good argument for such opinion. To win, Gibson has to prove that I have violated some part of EULA. Can you see any words in EULA about files PRODUCED by the software?
 
I have mentioned that I have found several related cases in EU in which big companies have lost the case. And no single one in which they won. Do you know any case in US, where extracting user own information out of proprietary format mechanical way was considered illegal?
 

And for the topic of this thread: FXes are coming, with presets. But slowly, since there are many variations (on Reaper side) which I have to understand.
 
 

Which is why i clearly said that regardless of any of our opinions it is highly unlikely Gibson pursues this. If you want a true test, attempt same thing with living product.

dubdisciple
Which is why i clearly said that regardless of any of our opinions it is highly unlikely Gibson pursues this. If you want a true test, attempt same thing with living product.

To make a true test, I have to travel to US first. In EU:

The person having a right to use a copy of a computer program shall be entitled, without the authorisation of the rightholder, to observe, study or test the functioning of the program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program if he does so while performing any of the acts of loading, displaying, running, transmitting or storing the program which he is entitled to do.

followed by...

The authorisation of the rightholder shall not be required where reproduction of the code and translation of its form within the meaning of points (a) and (b) of Article 4(1) are indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, provided that the following conditions are met:
(a) those acts are performed by the licensee or by another person having a right to use a copy of a program, or on their behalf by a person authorised to do so;
(b) the information necessary to achieve interoperability has not previously been readily available to the persons referred to in point (a); and
(c) those acts are confined to the parts of the original program which are necessary in order to achieve interoperability.

One big German software company has lost at least once in attempt to avoid parsing own scripts by third party commercial firms, while the company primary income is custom scripts development for clients, I mean they could clearly prove that activity intersect with own commercial interests.
I think Ableton, Cubase, Samplitude, as German companies, will think twice before attempting to open such case.
Converter clearly fall into "interoperability" type of programs.