Most of us never encounter Sonars bugs because of the simple way in which we use it. That has always been Sonars appeal to me. It gives me a lot more than I'll ever use and if I needed it there. But I certainly have stayed on top of features that are well documented to cause issue. Example, don't try and apply Melodyn to a whole track. 
 
As a Sonar users we all sort of collectively know what features are buggy and either use with caution or avoid.  
 
Many of these other DAW's might be more stable, I don't know.. I'm sure all software has bugs. But myself I would not have used Sonar if I was planning on using a lot of Automation because, ya,, it's buggy as all get out. 
 
I hope this tool does work because I think it's a cool idea and will be very popular in the transition period. 

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.

Brando
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.

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.
 
Did I miss it, or did anyone mention which of Sonar's Plugins we would be able to load into a different DAW? I use DimPro and Rapture extensively in my projects, and usually immediately convert those MIDI tracks into audio when finished. I do like a lot of the other CW plugins that came with Sonar Platinum, but does anyone have knowledge of which plugins will load to another DAW?....is there a list of which ones can and which ones can't?? I would appreciate if someone from CW (or anyone else who knows) could please post that list here if possible. Thanks!
 
MM

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

Brando
... 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.

This. Plus, 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.

As I and others have said, no, I'm not a lawyer, but I do know a number of them, and one of the things they tend to say rather a lot is, don't throw good money after bad. I imagine they would give the same advice to Gibson - who clearly have much, much bigger problems to deal with.

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. 

azslow3
In short. In case I will use the information from CWP file, in particular to open CWP files in Reaper, is that going to be legal?
 
In details.
We do NOT OWN CW software nor any part of it. And we are not allowed to RE/modify/etc. any bundled with Sonar code. That is in EULA and there is no questions about that part.
 
But WE OWN WAVS, MIDI, FLAC and other media files which Sonar produce. At the end, that is why we have payed for the license to use Sonar (plug-ins, etc). So we can do whatever we like with these files. We can use them in other DAWs, we can split them into bits, modify, sell, etc.
 
CWP files are also "media" files. They have the information how we have named out tracks, fade-in/fade-outs, automations, which settings we was using for the project and plug-ins, MIDI data, etc.
CWP files do not contain any CODE (at least it looks so).
CWP files are not "encrypted" (breaking any encryption is illegal).
 
But...
At least some "presets" from CW contain IP, as was mentioned in the forum before (f.e. FX chains from Craig).
There are many precedences that formats can be "protected" by something, f.e. mp3 not so long time ago.
 
So far, by deep Googling, I came to the conclusion that at least in Europe (and I am in Europe) file formats can not be patented. Restrictions can be on the DATA usage, but data in my case are solely made by users (using Sonar) directly or by Sonar on behalf of users. Restrictions can be on algorithms for using the data (like with mp3), but it seems like not the case with data in question.
 
But I am not a lawyer. In case someone has opinions (better with references...), please let me know.
 
As already discussed in several other threads, when a program development is stopped, people start to think about data preservation. While we can save WAVs and MIDI, there is a bit more information in our projects.

AHHH WHAT!!!???

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.

Man, if you've gotten this far in the project that's amazing!!  Press on!

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!