Hi all,
Thanks for contributing to the discussion. It isn't clear to me what the final
decision is.
I think many of you (Dan, Damir, others) see the issue with the wording and
understand what I'm trying to do (definitely nothing malicious toward Blender)
which is to extend Blender to do new things via a script or plugin. Blender
has
created facilities for extension, but the language used by the Foundation makes
it DEBATABLE that the extension may need to have a license compatible with the
GPL. The situation (probably common, like the VRay example) is that a script
or
plugin can be written to use the Blender API from within Blender AND call a DLL
with a different license. I can think of several examples that the community
is
probably already using or would like to use that may be violating the language
used by the Blender Foundation. Again, I think Blender will be well served by
allowing for such extensions.
Will the Blender Foundation provide language that removes any doubt that
proprietary DLLs can be used from at least one form of extension mechanism?
Thanks,
John
________________________________
From: Roger Wickes <rogerwic...@yahoo.com>
To: bf-blender developers <bf-committers@blender.org>
Sent: Wed, October 6, 2010 6:20:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Bf-committers] extension clause
Think about it this way. A program that runs under Linux uses OS API's. Even
though Linux is GPL,
the program does not have to be GPL. Blender is a facility. If you use
publicly-available APIs to
write an extension to Blender, or even a whole suite of programs like an
AutoCAD-type, you can
license your Intellectual Property any way you want to.
What you cannot do is to take some existing Blender module, extend it with your
own code,
and then license that module back out.
--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: Leo Sutic <leo.su...@gmail.com>
To: bf-blender developers <bf-committers@blender.org>
Sent: Wed, October 6, 2010 3:23:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Bf-committers] extension clause
This is one of those questions that end up being decided by case law.
The issue is what is an "aggregate" and what is a "modified version". See:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
It is tricky to define where the line between these is drawn, as much of
it depends on the nature of the connection between the Blender-part and
the "external" part. If public APIs are used on both sides, then it
comes closer to "aggregation". If private APIs are used, closer to
"modified version".
I had this same discussion with the authors of JBoss, an EJB Server, a
while back. There, too, one could write plugins for the server. The end
result was that as long as the plugin only used public APIs (Java
standards), you could do anything you wanted.
/LS
On 2010-10-06 06:56, Dan Eicher wrote:
> As long as myDLL didn't link to or rely on any gpl'd code there's nothing
> anyone can say about how people use it -- except for the copyright owner of
> course.
>
> Bundling (distributing it and blender in the same 'package') is probably not
> an option though.
>
> The bottom line is that we consider everything you can create in Blender as
>> 'data', including Blender scripts. But when you extend Blender with "other
>> facilities" you have to follow the regulations of the GPL.
>>
>> ...snip...
>>
>> The divider is "If the script runs in the Blender Interpretor". When the
>> script calls code not running in the Blender Interpretor you are making
>> bindings to other facilities, and the regular GNU GPL rules apply.
>>
> Hmm... so one can only make calls to gpl compatible code if they want to
> distribute a script that runs in blender's interpreter?
>
> That doesn't sound right.
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers@blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>
_______________________________________________
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers@blender.org
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
_______________________________________________
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers@blender.org
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
_______________________________________________
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers@blender.org
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
