My 2 cents on the matter is that closed source extensions to blender,
in order to be useful, have to be missing from the free core of
blender. That means that people who write commercial extensions may
end up trying to influence the development of blender
somehow(financially being the obvious
At the company I work for, we are doing a project that requires
customisation of Blender. Traditionally, the client has been heavily
against the idea of free software. But Blender is so good, and the
benefits of being able to modify it are so great that it can't be
ignored. The client is even
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 *extending* Blender, not taking parts of it and making them
proprietary.
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Damir Prebeg blend.fact...@gmail.com 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
@Knapp
There are a billion closed source applications in this world, and yet
you are not starving.
Neither will you be starving if there is one more closed source
application in the world.
I should know by now not to joke in internationally read emails. :-)
Before I, grew up, and moved
Developing/improving on any code which some other company may be using for
making money doesn't make sense, because then you are probably helping
improve their program, for which they get more users and more money, which
in turn reduces our users money, thus hampering even our speed of
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 I point out that existing blender developers are not pushing for
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Campbell Barton ideasma...@gmail.com 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
El Thu, 25 Nov 2010 12:39:17 -0800
Alex Combas blenderw...@gmail.com escribió:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Campbell Barton
ideasma...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, All things considered I'm apathetic towards LGPL switch.
Its still quite restrictive, and I'm not aware of any commercial
2010/11/25 José Romero jose.cyb...@gmail.com:
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
looks like many of you, when talking about proprietary software, see this
scenario:
an evil super-big corporation (we'll use a fake name for it: Autodesk, or
Microsoft) steal or abuse Blender, and get away with it. They make lots of
money they don't deserve, our beloved developers get pissed, our
On 2010-11-26 00:40, Lorenzo Pierfederici wrote:
Maya is in a way a very open software: stable APIs for plugins,
lots of documentation and examples, good support. You can build amazing
stuff around it
Seems like you got your solution right there.
Why aren't you just going with Maya?
/LS
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 level useful
extensions possible.
and this mean no more talk
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Diego B bdi...@gmail.com 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
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Campbell Barton ideasma...@gmail.com 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
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
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Alex Combas blenderw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Campbell Barton ideasma...@gmail.com
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
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.
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
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
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
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Alex Combas blenderw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Ton Roosendaal t...@blender.org 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-
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Alex Combas blenderw...@gmail.com 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
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 within
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Alex Combas blenderw...@gmail.com 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
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
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 cweb...@dustycloud.org 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
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Martin Poirier the...@yahoo.com 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
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 level
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
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
btolp...@internode.on.net 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
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
Hello developers,
A common statement I've heard people make when talking about the
possibility of a license change is: Its a good idea, but in practical
terms it is almost impossible.
I do not think that is true. Here is my proposal for how it could be done:
~~~
1. Wait until Blender gets out
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Alex Combas blenderw...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello developers,
A common statement I've heard people make when talking about the
possibility of a license change is: Its a good idea, but in practical
terms it is almost impossible.
I do not think that is true.
38 matches
Mail list logo
