> > > I don't see any benefits for Blender if it would be "easier" for Silicon
> Valey guys to link their proprietary code with Blenders code. If companies can use blender in their creative pipelines, then it will mean more blender users and more blender developers. In the 3d community blender is a promising project, but it's a footnote when compared with Maya/Max/Lightwave/etc. Linux effectively replaced commercial Unix. MySQL has dramatic marketshare vs Oracle, MS-SQL, and others. Both while remaining open-source but by making it VIABLE for companies to use them. Blender has the potential to do the same by making it viable for companies to use it. I hope that one day Blender is a real competitor to Maya or 3dsmax. I hope that one day 3d job requisitions might ask for Blender skills. I hope one day 3d art and gaming studios that make commercial moves and commercial games, make use of Blender as they are today using Linux and MySQL, and countless other open source tools. Because when that happens, Blender will be an excellent and first class 3d tool that is open-source and freely available to all. That day can only come if it's viable for companies to use Blender in the ways they use Maya and Max without fearing a violation of the GPL. The licensing today does not allow this. > "IF IDENTIFIABLE SECTIONS of that work ARE NOT DERIVED FROM THE PROGRAM, > and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in > themselves, > > THEN THIS LICENSE, and its terms, DO NOT APPLY TO THOSE SECTIONS WHEN YOU > > DISTRIBUTE THEM AS SEPARATE WORKS." > > I'm not a GPL expert or a lawyer, but I think that the important sentence > is > "and can be reasonably considered INDEPENDANT and SEPARATE works". > Currently, if you write an extension/addon that uses any part of blender, > or relies upon any part of blender, even just the python interface which is > included with blender, then it can not reasonably be considered independant > and separate, and thus it is subject to the terms of the GPL. > Exactly. AFAIK, the current legal interpretation is that if you don't link, and you are not dependent on behavior, then you are "independent and separate". Everything else is a grey area and depends on the paranoia of the parties. Most I've talked to feel that writing an extension for GPLed software which is dependent specifically on a GPLed API requires being under the GPL. Which means you basically don't do it unless you are happy with GPL. Don't make the mistake of thinking that "doing it in secret" is a good enough answer for a company. > > I do not think there is any reasonable way around this. > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers