On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Bassam Kurdali wrote:
> as an alternative, you could consider an aggregator, like what
> jesterking made in planetblender, or planet.gnome.org, etc.
>
We already have two nearly identical aggregators (blendernation.com and
planetblender.org), what value
would crea
2010/11/8 Gustav Göransson
>
> Can't it be both?
>
>
I can't speak for anyone, but myself so its really just my opinion.
But I think it is wiser to be one or the other, and I'll tell you why.
Blogs are picked up by aggregators, but aggregators do not pick up other
aggregators.
This is why Blen
I just saw this presentation earlier today as well. Great presentation in my
opinion.
I absolutely could not believe someone would ask "Do we want new users?"
Such a selfish thought should be banished.
I sincerely hope all developers can unanimously and enthusiastically
answer "Yes we do!" and l
You need to go to http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
At the bottom you will see a button that says "unsubscribe"
Enter your email address and then click "unsubscribe".
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:01 PM, john slone wrote:
> i cant make the program work , it's a little above
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Damir Prebeg wrote:
> I don't see any benefits for Blender if it would be "easier" for Silicon
> Valey guys to link their proprietary code with Blenders code.
Sorry, but I think this is quite short sighted.
The current situation with blender is that developers
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Dan Eicher wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Alex Combas
> wrote:
> >
> > The current situation with blender is that developers are being told how
> > they must license their
> > code, and they have very little freedom in
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 6:54 AM, Ton Roosendaal wrote:
>
> ...
>
> To Alex Combas (and others): the fact Blender uses one of the
> strictest OS licenses has benefited us too. Contributors can keep
> their own copyrights, and market or spread their own contributions
> totall
Taken from the GNU GPL FAQ:
"What legal issues come up if I use GPL-incompatible libraries with GPL
software?"
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
Answer (in part):
Both versions of the GPL have an exception to their copyleft, commonly
called the system library exception
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:30 PM, David Jeske wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Campbell Barton >wrote:
>
> @Alex Combas - ...
>
> The wording here, even in the case of a manual exception, refers to the
> non-GPL code as a "library" and implies it's
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Michael McLay wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Ton Roosendaal wrote:
>
> > For temporary docs, work in progress, and other interesting
> > development updates, both blender.org cms and wiki fail to satisfy.
> >
>
>
> > I think of setting up a blog (wordp
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:00 PM, David Jeske wrote:
>
> When I write "extension", I mean: "an add-on which is compiled against and
> dynamic loaded into the address space of another program, but normally
> distributed separately."
>
> To write a "closed source extension add-on" you have to "link
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Martin Poirier wrote:
>
>
> --- On Wed, 11/17/10, David Jeske wrote:
>
> > I've heard a few people mention this loophole related to
> > the definition of
> > 'distribution', where if a binary is distributed only
> > within an
> > organization, then that's not rea
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Dan Eicher wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Alex Combas
> wrote:
> >
> > You might also say that the GPL often says "Yes you can sell GPL
> software",
> > yet how many GPL projects are activelly sold and activel
I liked it as well. Node stuff is always interesting.
Hope you're feeling better soon.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Jaevixa McNomera wrote:
> > Great to see fighting spirit in this way. I'm eager to see the rest of
> > her series :)
> >
> > Thanks Mr. Letwory! I'm so happy people like it. I
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Stefano Corazza wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> We are working on a Collada import plugin for Blender that we would like
> to include in the general release.
>
> Emiliano Gambaretto here at Mixamo is the lead developer of this effort.
> We have a few questions that are rel
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Jason van Gumster <
ja...@handturkeystudios.com> wrote:
>
> Alex Combas wrote:
>
> > Similarly, virtually zero companies actually go the route of making a
> > modified internal version of GPL software.
>
> How would someone co
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Matt Henley wrote:
> I agree that company lawyers tend to be paranoid. I deal with that
> frequently in oil/gas equipment manufacturing.
>
>
>
Right, I'm just saying this is the view that some companies would have.
I'm not saying this is my view, or the right vi
Hey devs,
I know there is code in Blender that uses lcms, but I've heard that code
isn't called
and doesn't actually do anything, and yet I see in public build files that a
lot of people
are still building with lcms support.
So is lcms code actually active, are there plans to make it active if no
Thanks Matt, I will try to spread the word.
___
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers@blender.org
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Dan Eicher wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Alex Combas
> wrote:
> >
> > Well the GPL has never been defended in court from what I've heard...
>
>
> You heard wrong...
>
Yes, I am. Thanks for pointing that out.
Th
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 8:01 AM, Martin Poirier wrote:
> --- On Sun, 11/21/10, Benjamin Tolputt wrote:
>
> > On 22/11/2010 2:12 AM, Martin Poirier
> > wrote:
> > > Stealing a copy doesn't count as distribution.
> >
> > The scenario I am talking about is not a "stolen"
> > distribution,
>
> You d
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Dan Eicher wrote:
> >
> > For
> > example, if I made an interesting game using the Blender Game Engine, I
> > could sell my game as a binary with my only obligation to release the
> > source
> > to all components of the Blender Game Engine I used, as well as any
>
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Campbell Barton wrote:
>
>
> While this is what blenders GPL exception states it does seem quite
> fuzzy as to what it does/doesn't apply to.
> - python its self has many compiled extensions, ok so it
> cant/shouldn't apply to this case but where does it end?
> - w
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Ton Roosendaal wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Phew, mind boggling discussions here. I know GNU GPL isn't easy to
> understand, but it would improve readability of the traffic on this
> list if we can stop with interpretations of the GNU GPL now. :)
>
> However, taking a posi
dified 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
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
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 hav
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
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
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 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
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Damir Prebeg wrote:
>>
>> I don't think *anyone* is suggesting that the Blender code "end up in
>> some closed source software". We're looking at making Blender capable
>> (legally) of using third-party distributed closed-source plugins. This
>> is about *extendin
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Campbell Barton wrote:
> Hi, All things considered I'm apathetic towards LGPL switch.
>
> Its still quite restrictive, and I'm not aware of any commercial
> extensions for blender so far, even though its possible to write them
> without changing to LGPL.
>
>
> May
2010/11/25 José Romero :
>
> Blender is a tool for artists, not programmers.
>
I hate to break the news to you.
It is because of programmers that Blender exists.
___
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers@blender.org
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Diego B wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please stop the fight on this thread, there is no point to talk about
> LGPL, Maya, the good support or whatever.
>
> Ton already say that the possibility to re-licensing with LGPL is near
> zero, so we need focus on "ways to get end-user l
35 matches
Mail list logo
