On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Campbell Barton wrote:
>
> Look at the simplest case for a LGPL switch:
> if all blender developers and all contributors agree to switch to LGPL.
>
> We still have libraries that are GPL, these cant just be made into
> extensions, they need to be replaced or remo
A lot of the discussion has centered around integrating Blender in a
production system based on proprietary software. I'd like to bring up
the following two points:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary
sy
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Alex Combas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Campbell Barton
> wrote:
>>
>> Look at the simplest case for a LGPL switch:
>> if all blender developers and all contributors agree to switch to LGPL.
>>
>> We still have libraries that are GPL, these cant
Hello,
I have a couple of things to say :)
1)
If I was you, I would start a wiki page where to collect the results of
all these discussions: right now I have the impression that this will go
nowhere if you keep discussing just here.
Maybe there's a better chance to get to a proper document.
2
As part of the ongoing work on the particles-2010 branch i decided to
address some of the nagging issues of group nodes. While nice in
theory, the usability of node groups suffers from bad behavior and
missing features to reveal its true power. Three things in particular
i would like to fix:
* Ext
Hello,
GPL it is, and GPL it will be. Switching to v3 would be possible to
some point anything else is completely out of discussion imho. Also in
practical terms, it's not really possible to switch to LGPL,... in
such a huge project I bet there will be at least 20-30 contributors,
who would really
There's been a lot of discussion on here about "how could we move to a
point where we weaken the copyleft Blender has?"
I would just like to put in that not everyone hopes this will
happen... I do not hope it will happen. I personally think the lack of
a copyright assignment within Blender, and u
Hi all,
I'm working on an improved softbody modifier from scratch.
What is the best place to store modifier related data, like mass, velocity,
additional geometry used only for the simulation, etc.?
I have looked at the code of both the current softbody and the cloth
modifier, and they seem to th
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Matt Ebb wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What's the deal with RNA property update functions and the animation system?
>
> I would have expected the animation system to run the update functions
> when an rna property is updated via an fcurve/driver/etc, but they're
> not. Why is t
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 Founda
Am 23.11.2010 15:14, schrieb Campbell Barton:
> Revision: 33257
>
> http://projects.blender.org/plugins/scmsvn/viewcvs.php?view=rev&root=bf-blender&revision=33257
> Author: campbellbarton
> Date: 2010-11-23 15:14:06 +0100 (Tue, 23 Nov 2010)
>
> Log Message:
> ---
> Changes
very strange that this worked, the float and string argument to the
sprintf function were swapped,
works now.
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Carsten Wartmann wrote:
> Am 23.11.2010 15:14, schrieb Campbell Barton:
>> Revision: 33257
>>
>> http://projects.blender.org/plugins/scmsvn/vi
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Ton Roosendaal wrote:
> 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 I think you know full well the
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Alex Combas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Ton Roosendaal wrote:
>> 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 extension
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Alex Combas wrote:
> Ton I think you know full well the potential which is being thrown away.
> So if you feel we should not pursue this, then I will agree with you.
>
> But I'm disappointed, as far as freedom goes no one would even notice
> the difference bet
On 25/11/2010 7:17 a.m., Ton Roosendaal wrote:
> 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.
Is there a way to have closed source extensions work with
Do it in modifier data, I'm pretty sure current softbody is like that
for historical reasons, from before it was rolled into the modifier
stack system.
Matt
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 3:38 AM, Gergely Klár wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm working on an improved softbody modifier from scratch.
> What is the
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Alex Combas wrote:
> But I'm disappointed, as far as freedom goes no one would even notice
> the difference between GPL and LGPL except for people who want to earn
> a living writing software.
>
> LGPL is the best of both worlds.
Yeah, well, other than the people
if you distribute an LGPL application you MUST provide the source code
if you modify and distribute an LGPL application you MUST provide the
source code.
It is NO different than the GPL in this regard.
The only difference is that if a separate program links to an LGPL
program then the
separate p
You seem to be co-mingling your free (gratis) and free (libre).
Dan
___
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers@blender.org
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
I thought Ton was clear enough the first time, but apparently not, so let me
reiterate:
-
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.
-
Alex, please drop
> I can understand people would be upset if the programmer had modified
> Blender but he did NOT modify Blender at all, he simply used Blender
> in a similar way that an artist would use Blender to create artwork.
The programmer is free to use IPC for that purpose.
El Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:28:03 -0600
Christopher Allan Webber escribió:
> There's been a lot of discussion on here about "how could we move to a
> point where we weaken the copyleft Blender has?"
>
> I would just like to put in that not everyone hopes this will
> happen... I do not hope it will hap
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Martin Poirier wrote:
> I thought Ton was clear enough the first time, but apparently not, so let me
> reiterate:
>
> -
>
> 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
On 25/11/2010 10:09 AM, Martin Poirier wrote:
> I thought Ton was clear enough the first time, but apparently not, so let me
> reiterate:
>
> -
>
> 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
This debate is going nowhere. I get an impression that some people simply
can't accept the fact that a lots of developers are working on Blender code
exactly because GPL license ensures them that their hard work will not end
up in some closed source software. And I don't think that they are all
sta
On 25/11/2010 5:30 PM, Damir Prebeg wrote:
> This debate is going nowhere.
I think parts of it are moving forward. There are some people that don't
want the debate at all and some that are taking rejection of their ideas
as a complete rejection of the concept of proprietary plugins. I don't
think
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Benjamin Tolputt
wrote:
>
>
> This I agree with too. LGPL will allow, if only through careful
> extraction of code into a shared library, the extraction of code from
> the Blender project into closed source projects. Personally, even though
> I am for the capabili
Here's a small video demoing the feature:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUidTgzy8zo
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Lukas Tönne
wrote:
> As part of the ongoing work on the particles-2010 branch i decided to
> address some of the nagging issues of group nodes. While nice in
> theory, the usabil
On 25/11/2010 6:19 PM, Alex Combas wrote:
> I think a lot of people are agreeable to the idea of closed source
> plugins for Blender.
I think you'd be right ;)
> But there is really no way to do that with the GPL ...unless you try
> to break the GPL somehow by using shims or some other sort of lo
30 matches
Mail list logo
