On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Campbell Barton <[email protected]>wrote:
> ...snip... > 2) do what nvidia do on linux. mix closed and open code but distribute > separately. this means the violation only happens on the system where > both are installed and running. > > That is merely tolerated by Linus et al. and is probably a violation of the gpl from what I understand. And, if you look into it a bit, they have a 'fine line' between public api (good) and other kernel level calls (bad) which in blender would most likely translate to py-api (good) and ctypes (bad). Found an article from the recent WordPress gpl dustup that explains the distinction pretty well -- http://markjaquith.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/why-wordpress-themes-are-derivative-of-wordpress/. It kind of seems from the FSF analysis of 'themes' -- http://wordpress.org/news/2009/07/themes-are-gpl-too/ -- that operators and extensions would indeed be subject to the gpl since they are "intermingled with and operated on by" blender code. I'm also thinking that calling external renderers is probably good (vray example) since they aren't "designed to run linked together in a shared address space" but the actual blender exporter script is most likely subject to the gpl. But, as always, seek proper legal council. Dan** _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
