On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:19 PM, David Jeske <[email protected]> wrote: > I think my post was mis-interpreted. I'm not trying to discuss the point of > commercially distributed binary extensions.
Another issue related to this is the ambiguity of connecting blender to non-GPL code, even if the plugin/extension code that connects it is GPL. This seems to preclude ever being able to a plugin based (i.e. DLL/so) renderer connection to any non-GPL render engine, like Vray or Arnold for example, even if the connection code/plugin is GPL. From what I understand the mere fact that somewhere along the line a header may be included from a non-GPL source, will cause the whole thing to break down in the eyes of licensing. It's also quite inconsistent in the 'spirit of the license' since in terms of licensing similar functionality is perfectly acceptable if for example you use python to export to a renderer via a scene description format (except of course it can be slower and not as powerful for other kinds of functionality). To me this is not even a matter of 'keeping blender free', since blender's code base itself wouldn't really be modified, and even if the connection code is GPL, it still wouldn't be allowed since it links with a non-free library. Matt _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
