On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 9:02 AM, David Jeske <dav...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Dan Eicher <d...@trollwerks.org> wrote: > >> > >> > I believe it's important to many users (especially, but not limited to >> > corporate users) to have a secondary 'proprietary plugin market', >> > > >> > That option has been discussed and all but approved, the only hitch is >> the >> plugin writers also have to write and maintain the BSD (or whatever) api >> shim code. >> > > How is legally viable to make a capable BSD licensed API with the code under > the GPL? The shim would be dependent on material details of the Blender > design and internals. It would probably expose many of those details (such > as UI panels, RNA) As a result, the shim should be under the GPL, and as a > result, the extensions should be under the GPL. >
The same way the (BSD licensed) ofx api can load proprietary code/libs. Blender can link to the header files and the *users* load/link to the non-gpl compatible external code (which also links to the BSD'd header files)... everyone gets what they want and no copyrights are violated. Drinks for everyone!!! _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
