Hi all, Phew, mind boggling discussions here. I know GNU GPL isn't easy to understand, but it would improve readability of the traffic on this list if we can stop with interpretations of the GNU GPL now. :)
However, taking a position on what we want for the future in general is still relevant. David raised an issue - and he wasn't the first one - how to cope with the fact that GPL is not very permissive to extend or use with proprietary development. Basically there are two cases we can investigate: 1) Allow anyone to extend Blender, linked dynamically with scripts or libraries or plugins 2) Allow anyone to dynamically link in Blender libraries in their own programs The LGPL will only allow the latter. For the first we have to devise an extension clause (if we want to stick to GPL). Actions: - I can do the next weeks/months more research to gather information via other OS projects about their experience with GPL in commercial environments. I'll report back on this. - Finding out from significant contributors to Blender how they personally feel about re-licensing or extensions My personal opinion: I don't like the idea to switch entire Blender to LGPL much. Blender is a 3D artist tool, not a development environment with libraries. It's positive that people can add libraries in Blender without forcing them to make it available for everyone as LGPL. Allowing Blender to be extended more easily (scripts, plugins, libs) is more interesting. In that respect I recognize practices in studios, and how support companies like to work. -Ton- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ton Roosendaal Blender Foundation t...@blender.org www.blender.org Blender Institute Entrepotdok 57A 1018AD Amsterdam The Netherlands _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers