well, sentences like "If something needs x to work..." is little bit
tricky. After all you require a pc to run scripts independently what
they do. If we see little bit far away we can say you can't publish
anything under GPL because you require an Intel chipset to make it
running or you require Win
This is one of those questions that end up being decided by case law.
The issue is what is an "aggregate" and what is a "modified version". See:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
It is tricky to define where the line between these is drawn, as much of
it depends on the
Thank you very much guys, this is very good information. Keep it coming if
anyone else has anything they think is obvious, but which might not be clear
yet.
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Mathew Burrack wrote:
> I actually had to write similar code back in the day for realMYST/URU for
> handli
Hi,
A user-definable profile will allow you to make Blender behave as you
want, and not behave as the drivers, vendor strings, bugs, exceptions,
and our smart developers think it will be. You can always do a good
guess first though, but in the end allowing to tweak some important
settings
Think about it this way. A program that runs under Linux uses OS API's. Even
though Linux is GPL,
the program does not have to be GPL. Blender is a facility. If you use
publicly-available APIs to
write an extension to Blender, or even a whole suite of programs like an
AutoCAD-type, you can
l
i think the person who made that statement is wrong. Any program
needs an OS to "work", yet you can license your program differently from
the way the OS is licensed. The API is the dividing line. If you dance on the
outside of the API, your stuff is yours.
--Roger
Check out my website at www.
The irony is that, at least IMHO, the specific example you gave actually
supported my idea of *not* having user intervention.
Specifically, you're putting the burden on the user to determine whether their
graphics card supports GL_POINTS correctly or not. End users don't want to
bother with tha
Hi all,
Thanks for contributing to the discussion. It isn't clear to me what the final
decision is.
I think many of you (Dan, Damir, others) see the issue with the wording and
understand what I'm trying to do (definitely nothing malicious toward Blender)
which is to extend Blender to do new th
Probably our FAQ should list possible ways to write closed source code
with blender, rather then only saying whats not possible.
AFAIK there are a few ways...
1) run your closed source code in a separate process and have your own
opensouce module communicate with it (pipes, sockets, shared-mem).
2
Related to this, wouldn't it suffice to release the RNA and bpy modules
under a less restrictive license (BSD) to potentially solve this issue?
I think we can reasonably track down all contributors to these modules,
as they're fairly recent and all of the APIs scripts use are bridged by
these tw
>Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 16:07:13 +
>From: Campbell Barton
>Subject: Re: [Bf-committers] extension clause
>
> 3) do whatever the heck you like but only use internally or share with
clients but dont sell or distribute pubically.
Absolutely DO NOT distribute Blender "pubically"!! There has G
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Campbell Barton wrote:
> ...snip...
>
2) do what nvidia do on linux. mix closed and open code but distribute
> separately. this means the violation only happens on the system where
> both are installed and running.
>
> That is merely tolerated by Linus et al. and is
On 07/10/2010, at 05:20 , Dan Eicher wrote:
> I'm also thinking that calling external renderers is probably good (vray
> example) since they aren't "designed to run linked together in a shared
> address space" but the actual blender exporter script is most likely subject
> to the gpl.
I think th
https://projects.blender.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=24177&group_id=9&atid=127
copy pasted from the patch description:
this removes the need for adding a texture if all you want is a uniform push
over the entire mesh using the displace
modifier.
now my usual workflow is to use the displ
Hi,
mburr...@yahoo.com (2010-10-06 at 0815.35 -0700):
> The irony is that, at least IMHO, the specific example you gave
> actually supported my idea of *not* having user intervention.
>
> Specifically, you're putting the burden on the user to determine
> whether their graphics card supports GL_POIN
http://projects.blender.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=24178&group_id=9&atid=127
Hello there,
this patch brings Rasterizer.makeScreenshot back to Blender 2.5.
It's a draft patch, it works but raises one question. I'm not sure whether
it's better to copy Blender code, to change blender code
> > Specifically, you're putting the burden on the user to
> determine
> > whether their graphics card supports GL_POINTS
> correctly or not. End
> > users don't want to bother with that; they just want
> to get
> > modeling!
>
> Some cards/drivers claim X, then give you "X by software"
> (looks
HI Mitchell.
I have no familiarity with Unity (although always heard wonders about it)
nevertheless it sounds like an interesting feature.
I confess that the workflow confused me a little bit. Why to go to outliner
instead of loading the class straight from a text (internal or not)
datablock? If I
Hi,
mburr...@yahoo.com (2010-10-06 at 2155.27 -0700):
> > So in the end there should be a manual override system on
> > top of code
> > that tries to do a first guess. Just like the swap method
> > selection.
> My suggestion for the Python API for the exceptions list satisfies
> that. Yes, you need
19 matches
Mail list logo
