+1 on both. GPL for render part, BSD for API - is that possible, after all, all of the other stuff in the code (which will be statically compiled with the cycles code base) is GPL.. ?
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Ton Roosendaal <t...@blender.org> wrote: > Hi Tom, > > To me Brecht didnt mention he'd prefer licensing as BSD. We just > agreed on putting it all under BF copyright, with our standard gpl > headers. > > BSD will for sure be more attractive for the industry to copy and use, > but if that gives back useful contributions is quite disputable. For > as now, Cycles is candidate to be evaluated to replace internal render > in the future, and for that GPL will suit perfectly. > > Using the render API to connect to other (commercial) engines is a > good issue to check on though. > > -Ton- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Ton Roosendaal Blender Foundation t...@blender.org www.blender.org > Blender Institute Entrepotdok 57A 1018AD Amsterdam The Netherlands > > On 28 Apr, 2011, at 23:32, Tom M wrote: > >> Hmm did the license get changed to GPL? >> >> I thought the plan was BSD licensed? It will make it far easier to >> attract contributors from industry with BSD licensed code. >> >> And BSD is compatible with GPL so shouldn't be an issue on our side... >> >> LetterRip >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers