Hi Aaron, I'd rather not. - Blender it's self has different licenses for different components, as long as it's GPL compatible users should not have to worry. I rather we keep this policy for add-ons too.
- the source code should have a license in the source code header. - the addons need to be GPL compatible so many will be redundant. - on the flip side, if there are complications with the license (addons which include data files for example), it's more likely to become a license paragraph. How about this policy: If add-ons include data-files or assets which aren't CC-0 (public domain), this must be stated in the add-on's description. I rather make the default being not to add noise into the interface and encourage add-on authors not to complicate matters for our users. Since the add-ons must be GPL compatible I don't think we need to include this in the metadata, developers can include this in the description if they really want. On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Aaron Carlisle <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Since add-ons have been widespread coming from hundreds > of authors and different location, it would be nice to communicate > how they are licensed. I think for 2.8 we should add a license to the > bl_info. > What do other people think? > > -- > Aaron Carlisle > > Project administrator for the Blender 3D Documentation Project > Email: [email protected] > Website: https://blendify.github.io > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers -- - Campbell _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
