While we are on this topic, would there be any way for me right now to consent to a change of license preemptively? I would be willing to allow for any change for code I have contributed to any other open source approved license. If I could just declare that right now then there would be no need for Blender Foundation to ask me in the future.
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Chad Fraleigh <[email protected]> wrote: > While re-licensing existing code may take some extended effort, what > about the option of changing the licensing of any new code added > (sooner than later) to dual GPL/LGPL (or even more at the option of > the submitter - PD/GPL+LGLP/MIT/BSD/XYZ...)? If a list was maintained > for all licenses that each contributor would find acceptable for their > part (even if blender/BGE doesn't use all of them itself).. then if > there are any later licensing modifications (in part or whole) the > change consent issue would be much easier. The only real effort would > be for those committing others' code to note a reference to the that > author's licensing entry (presumably by some unambiguous identifier, > not just name - in case two authors are named John Smith or > something). Of course this is already being done for giving credits, > so probably not too much of a change. > > Maybe some of this is already being done (I took a quick look at the > development page on the wiki and nothing of licensing > requirements/policies for contributors stood out). So either I didn't > look in the right place, or it is just understood that being a GPL > released project that all code must be GPL (or compatible, like PD). > > Personally I prefer a BSD license for my code, but when contributing > to some [L]GPL project I just accept using their license instead. I > wouldn't be surprised if others also frequently contribute code > outside their preferred license. > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Sinan Hassani <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I have started a thread on BlenderArtists asking whether BGE can be >> relicensed to LGPL based on the news that VLC is being relicensed from >> GPL to LGPL: >> >> http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?273712-VLC-coming-to-iOS-Can-BGE-be-relicensed-to-LGPL >> >> So one thing is for sure, a major open source, free software project >> that spans 10 years can indeed be relicensed. Whether that's good or >> bad, I don't know and it's not the subject of this topic. This subject >> is about whether BGE can be and should be relicensed to be more >> competitive as a game engine in the current environment we find our self >> in (App Stores, people spending more time on mobile devices, consumers >> that want to get their software from a familiar and convenient app >> repository, i.e. iOS App Store, Google Play). >> >> In the second link I post in that thread, it explains why LGPL is more >> suitable than GPL for App Stores (also based on a podcast from FSF I >> listened to): >> >> According to the LGPL terms, developers “are not responsible for >> enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.” With the >> project now licensed as LGPL software, there’s no longer an issue with >> Apple’s App Store policy that limits installation to five devices. >> >> Link: >> http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/vlc-re-licensed-as-lgpl-ready-to-head-back-to-the-app-store-20121115/ >> >> >> So my question is, can BGE be relicensed separate from Blender? If yes, >> then which parts can be relicensed? >> >> Additional points: >> >> -I'd like to get a reply from all major BGE contributors on whether they >> are okay with relicensing. And if yes, are they okay with LGPL, or do >> they want a more liberal license? Like MIT? > > -Chad > _______________________________________________ > 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
