What is not OK about it? I think it is clear that the Blender Foundation cannot support proprietary code.
If you have the situation where a company wants to build some DLL and keep it proprietary, then never release it to the public. Guard it as your own intellectual property. Use your code to your competitive advantage. I have a client who did just that. Their scripts that they wrote and paid for are theirs. They license their code and have a great business model. Their complete solution includes Blender, but they do not sub-license Blender or steal code; instead the customer gets Blender from BF, and their solution from them. Or do you have the situation where you want to develop a plugin to Blender that you license out (sell) to customers? --Roger Check out my website at www.rogerwickes.com for a good deal on my book and training course, as well as information about my latest activities. Use coupon Papasmurf for $15 off! ----- Original Message ---- From: john grant <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, October 5, 2010 10:09:50 PM Subject: [Bf-committers] extension clause 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/ _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
