Hello, I assume this topic has been brought up before, but I have not yet found evidence of those conversations. I would like to voice my opinion to find out what is the truth. If I am not understanding correctly, please let me know. I presume that the following text, "Not OK is: Author publishes a Blender script, calling a compiled C library with own code, both under own license. "
from this source, http://www.blender.org/education-help/faq/gpl-for-artists/ means that a DLL I wrote, let's call it "myDLL", would need a license compatible with the GPL if I made a python script that allowed me to use myDLL from Blender. I believe Blender would be well served if there was a exemption that did not require that extensions through python or C libraries become GPL or more restrictive. If these extensions were allowed to have any license model appropriate, I believe Blender would see more acceptance. Companies are currently avoiding Blender based on this understanding. I know, I work at one. I would really like to see Blender used more, at my company and at companies we interact with. I hope the issue is clear. Please let me know if I understand the license statement correctly and if the Blender Foundation would consider an exception clause for extending Blender. Sincerely, John _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
