Hi Alex, Based on feedback from key developers, the likelyhood there's a relicense to LGPL happing is near zero. Let's focus on ways to get end- user level useful extensions possible.
-Ton- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ton Roosendaal Blender Foundation t...@blender.org www.blender.org Blender Institute Entrepotdok 57A 1018AD Amsterdam The Netherlands On 24 Nov, 2010, at 1:26, Alex Combas wrote: > Hello developers, > > A common statement I've heard people make when talking about the > possibility of a license change is: "Its a good idea, but in practical > terms it is almost impossible". > > I do not think that is true. Here is my proposal for how it could be > done: > > ~~~ > 1. Wait until Blender gets out of beta. A good first step. > > 2. Clarify the objective to re-license the code. > > There are several different proposals for re-licensing Blender. Before > proceeding it would be necessary to pick one of them and make a > clearly stated goal. > > For example: "Our goal is to re-license the entire Blender code base > from GPL to LGPL for the purpose of keeping the code free and > protected, while at the same time allowing developers to write > extensions which link to Blender to use whatever license they wish for > their own code." > > 3. After having clearly defined "the goal" it would be necessary to > organize a census among the Blender developer community to determine > if the majority support this idea. > > 4. If we reach a state where the majority (at least 60-70%) of the > Blender developer community support this idea, then the idea should > move forward. But wait! Would it be possible to move forward if there > was less than 100% support? Yes. > > Next the Blender Foundation would need to make an announcement: > > "This is a notice to all past and present Blender developers: > We are planning to change the license under which Blender is > distributed from GPL to LGPL, this is for the purpose of keeping > Blender free and protected, while at the same time allowing other > developers to write extensions which link to Blender to use whatever > license they wish for their own code. > > Important: If we have applied patches to the code from you, and you > are opposed to this idea then please let us know and we will back out > your changes." > > At this point people should wait for at least a month or two to give > any developers who are opposed to the idea adequate time to go through > the source and notify the Blender foundation of any sections which > they claim they are the authors of and would like to have removed from > Blender if the license is changed. > > Now depending upon how that goes will determine how the license change > would proceed. > > Possibility #1: No developers contact the Blender Foundation and ask > for their code to be removed. In this case, license Blender as LGPL > and the job is done. > > Possibility #2: The Blender Foundation is notified by some developers > that a few small trivial parts of Blender which they have written > would need to be removed. > > In this case a separate branch could be created which does not contain > their code, once the code has been reimplemented then it could be > merged with trunk. Then license Blender as LGPL and the job is done. > > Possibility #3: The Blender Foundation is notified by some developers > that one or more major sections of Blender which they have written > will need to be removed. > > In this case it might be possible that their code could be completely > removed from Blender and re-built as an extension. > > For example, lets just say that the compositor was made by a single > developer and that this developer does not want his code to be > relicensed as LGPL. > > Since we do not wish to lose the compositor, and it would be > impractical to re-implement it, then the only option would be to > rebuild the compositor as an extension. In this way the compositor > extension would remain GPL in accordance with the authors wishes, and > the rest of Blender could still be relicensed as LGPL. > > Once the code in contention has been reimplemented or modified to > function as an extension then merge the branches, license Blender as > LGPL, and the job is done. > > ~~ > So that is my proposal. Sorry if it is a bit long winded. > > It is probably full of many holes which I am blissfully unaware of, > but hopefully this can help roll the ball a little further. > > Best regards, > Alex Combas > irc: blenderwell > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers