Wouldn't you need to know the CWP format as well as the new DAW's project format for this to work?
 
Besides... by the time you get it all figured out up and running, I think, you could have spent the same time just exporting/inserting the tracks by conventional means.  Once your projects are exported you'll have a converter you no longer need unless you keep creating new projects in Sonar that you intend on importing into your new DAW. In which case why not just use Sonar?!

I sort of agree but--- It's his hobbie , he enjoys the challenge! 
I'm staying with Sonar. 
But my projects transfer into Cubase with little effort.
That's because I'm not doing crazy things with Sonar. It.s the folks who have cretaed 100 track, 60 VST, 20 lane 9000 node automation monsters that are crapping their pants. I advise they just finish those off in Sonar and start something new. If you can't finish a song it was not worth starting anyhow. Learn to let go and move on to new and better creations. Just kidding,,,:)  but it;s partially true.. 

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.

Thanks. I will not release the translator into public then. But I am going to demonstrate that is possible.
I understand that full translator which sound the same is even theoretically impossible to make (without izotope, ProChannel, etc.). But I guess just:
* tempo
* moving audio to correct position (with loop points)
* moving MIDI to correct position
* automations
* and FXes
cover the expectation of such transition.
 
But the point is taken. We DO NOT own CWP projects.
 

msmcleod
Firstly, I think there's no doubt you own your .cwp files. 
If you wrote a book in word, does Microsoft own your .doc file? I don't think so.

But if you have typed it on a friends computer, you do not own this computer after putting your book there. Even in case you have rented the flat in which it stay. Your friend has no rights on the book, but till you have a way to copy .doc file somewhere else, the situation is not good. Your friend propose to export it as a text file loosing all formatting or continue on his place (which is still fine, but the flat and the computer are not going to be updated/supported).
 

soens
Wouldn't you need to know the CWP format as well as the new DAW's project format for this to work?

And so my "new DAW" has text based project files and no problem people mess with them. This lesson is learned.
 
Thanks all for thoughts and suggestions. There will be no public prototype release. But we can continue once I can demonstrate something

No you misunderstood. Users most definitely own their projects and any music produced in SONAR! 
I was referring to the translator itself not the project files. Personally I think export tools are cool although they are very hard to get right since all programs store data very differently.

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
No you misunderstood. Users most definitely own their projects and any music produced in SONAR! 
I was referring to the translator itself not the project files. Personally I think export tools are cool although they are very hard to get right since all programs store data very differently.

When I own something, I normally can do with it what I want. F.e. I can take my guitar apart and even attach some parts to another guitar, right?
I own my Reaper files. I can open them with any text editor any "copy paste" to any other place, I can buy AATranslator and extract some information out of it automatically, etc.
 
But you write that while I own automations in my CPW file, I am not allowed to extract them out of it.
Sorry, but that sounds like a bit strange interpretation of "owning" things for me. More like CW allows me to store my information in something I do not really own. So like a deposit in a bank. I own the deposit, but I do not own the bank. So to take it out, I have to follow rules...
 
I repeat. I do not disassemble/debug/etc. any CW code. I purely analyze the content of CWP file (sure, including changes in it when I modify the project).  Since you have already mentioned that. Yes, it is in general hierarchical objects container. Most objects are not structured down to primitives, so there are many chunks, relatively big binary structures, lists, arrays and maps of them, with some conditional flags when something exist or requires different interpretation (probably "version" or "types"). "Automatic digging" has produced the outline which was possible to relatively quickly interpret (tracks list->audio slices->audio files, track list->MIDI clip->MIDI events, etc.).
There are some clever (but known) solutions (like packing 6 bytes integer mTicks and seconds in double into one union, using NaN region of double). But so far I have not spotted anything what can be called IP, I mean nothing is so unusual that it should be protected as a technological innovation.
Without that "technological" component, data/software format can not be protected in Europe (from everything I know so far). At that stage I have created this thread, to discuss the topic in public

I think the CWP translator will be awesome and very welcome tool. Looking forward to try it.

There seems to be a lot of people willing to offer legal opinions, while stating "I'm not a lawyer", as some kind of justification for not spending any time using a search engine & reading around the subject!
 
A few points from my research in relation to various earlier posts;
 
- The US courts have no jurisdiction in the EU, so any court action would have to be through the (in this case) German courts, which are required to implement EU directives.
- An EULA cannot remove the rights afforded by the EU Directive 2009/24/EC.  See the Oracle vs UsedSoft for a nice high profile example of this.  It's worth noting, that in comparison, the situation here is incredibly simple to understand (a Cakewalk you could say!), given how clear article 6 is on the subject.
- Even if the cwp files were considered "part of the program", Directive 2009/24/EC Article 6 specifically allows thier reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability.
 
If anyone believes I am interpreting this incorrectly, please explain how.
link again : http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=208108#LinkTarget_129
 
 

azslow3

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
No you misunderstood. Users most definitely own their projects and any music produced in SONAR! 
I was referring to the translator itself not the project files. Personally I think export tools are cool although they are very hard to get right since all programs store data very differently.

When I own something, I normally can do with it what I want. F.e. I can take my guitar apart and even attach some parts to another guitar, right?
I own my Reaper files. I can open them with any text editor any "copy paste" to any other place, I can buy AATranslator and extract some information out of it automatically, etc.
 
But you write that while I own automations in my CPW file, I am not allowed to extract them out of it.
Sorry, but that sounds like a bit strange interpretation of "owning" things for me. More like CW allows me to store my information in something I do not really own. So like a deposit in a bank. I own the deposit, but I do not own the bank. So to take it out, I have to follow rules...

 
You're being far too pedantic about this and making it harder than it needs to be. 
 
When we use Sonar to make our original music, we own our music and Cakewalk has no claim to it. That should be obvious. What Cakewalk has done (and other DAW makers have done) is provide us with the tools to make our music. They own the code to those tools, and we own the music. If you create a song in Sonar and save it as a Sonar file (i.e. .cwp, .cwb), the music in that file is yours, not Cakewalk's. But Cakewalk owns the code to the DAW tools we use to create and save our music, and they sold you permission to use a copy of that code with the conditions described in their EULA. By using their tools, you agreed to their EULA. As far as reverse engineering any Sonar software, it is covered by the EULA, which generally states that you are prohibited from doing that. If you move ahead with your translator you could possibly open yourself up to litigation (if Gibson so chooses). If you have questions about that, you need to consult with a lawyer who has the appropriate knowledge and you can't expect to receive permission, or even reliable legal advice, through a web forum like this one.
 

There are some clever (but known) solutions (like packing 6 bytes integer mTicks and seconds in double into one union, using NaN region of double). But so far I have not spotted anything what can be called IP, I mean nothing is so unusual that it should be protected as a technological innovation.

 
Whether or not their "solutions" can be called IP is not determined by your anecdotal observations - that is determined by legal experts, and you can bet that the Cakewalk/Gibson legal team *will* consider their method as Intellectual Property.
 
You are asking some questions the require an attorney, but you seem to be trying to get legal advice from a forum full of musicians.  :-/

Ruben - the only question that Alexey is really trying to understand is whether a CWP file is considered "code" or whether it is a "container".
As he has stated, he has no intention to dig into SONAR which he agrees is "code". Unfortunately it doesn't seem like Noel is able to give him a straight answer. (Don't waste your time?).
I would think the last thing he wants is to have to enlist an attorney for something that is likely to be freeware or shareware or donationware or at best an app for a very small market. The utility also has its most significant value now and in the near future as a tool to help current users move to another DAW, in this case Reaper.

And - not to get even more pedantic, I would say that it would be hard for Cakewalk to prove they have more right of ownership to individual CWP files than the user - who clearly has (sole) rights to the contained content.

Cactus Music
That's because I'm not doing crazy things with Sonar. It.s the folks who have cretaed 100 track, 60 VST, 20 lane 9000 node automation monsters that are crapping their pants. I advise they just finish those off in Sonar and start something new.

 
Yeah, I'm one of those folk (but with tracks ~2x as complex) & unfortunately, I can't finish any of these songs as Gibson/Cakewalk have left Sonar Platinum with a recognised crippling showstopper of an automation bug, that leaves automation lanes orphaned & uneditable!
 
So for folk like myself who've invested huge amounts of time, the only hope going forward is a tool such as the one azslow3 is developing.