On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Knapp wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PyQt
>
> PyQt is developed by the British firm Riverbank Computing. It is
> available under similar terms to Qt versions older than 4.5; this
> means a variety of licenses including GNU General Public License (GPL)
> an
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PyQt
PyQt is developed by the British firm Riverbank Computing. It is
available under similar terms to Qt versions older than 4.5; this
means a variety of licenses including GNU General Public License (GPL)
and commercial license, but not the GNU Lesser General Public
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Dan Eicher wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:51 PM, David Jeske wrote:
> > Although the BSD above is confusing the example, I agree that by my read
> of
> > the GPL, an open-source GPL blender extension can load/call to a
> third-party
> > closed-source binary
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:51 PM, David Jeske wrote:
> Although the BSD above is confusing the example, I agree that by my read of
> the GPL, an open-source GPL blender extension can load/call to a third-party
> closed-source binary code library under the GPL's "library exception".
*Users* are th
> That is actually against the terms of the GPL. They cannot restrict usage
> like this.
>
> If that is what they want to do with their license, it is not GPL compatible
> and the FSF should send them a strongly worded leter.
>
> Martin
>
Well they aren't actually limiting the GPL version to No
--- On Mon, 11/22/10, Dahlia Trimble wrote:
> The GPL is not an exclusive license.
> Developers are free to publish their
> works under multiple licenses if they own the copyright
> outright.
Of course, that's nowhere near what I said.
When they say that their GPL licensed version free is for
The GPL is not an exclusive license. Developers are free to publish their
works under multiple licenses if they own the copyright outright.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Martin Poirier wrote:
>
>
> --- On Mon, 11/22/10, Doug Ollivier wrote:
>
> > A reply to the list in general,
> > People ha
--- On Mon, 11/22/10, Doug Ollivier wrote:
> A reply to the list in general,
> People have wanted real world cases:
>
> The following is an example of where the GPL is being used
> to actively
> limit commercial use of a PHP add-on class.
>
> http://www.interpid.eu/component/content/article/
On 22/11/10 21:21, Michael Williamson wrote:
> .
>
> It's fine in teh above cases to distribute the code without "Infecting"
> either Apples code or Steinbergs...
i meant the linking code!
___
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers@blender.org
http://
What happens when a third party writes a script that links to an
external library?
an example in the current code would be the quicktime libs
THE USER has to sign up for the licence agreement of the quicktime sdk,
obtain the source and then compile their own blender...
This is common in mus
A reply to the list in general, People have wanted real world cases:
The following is an example of where the GPL is being used to actively
limit commercial use of a PHP add-on class.
http://www.interpid.eu/component/content/article/47
Note that the GPL version is available to the general publi
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
Whatever licence that will not restrict Blender in the present and the
future from being used in any enviroment, open or close, is ok to me :)
Cheers Raul
> Hi David,
>
> Sorry, my mistake :) LGPL covers both cases I sketched.
>
> For now I'd like t
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Dan Eicher wrote:
> > How is legally viable to make a capable BSD licensed API with the code
> under
> > the GPL? The shim would be dependent on material details of the Blender
> > design and internals. It would probably expose many of those details
> (such
> > a
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 9:02 AM, David Jeske wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Dan Eicher wrote:
>
>> >
>> > I believe it's important to many users (especially, but not limited to
>> > corporate users) to have a secondary 'proprietary plugin market',
>>
>
>
>> > That option has been discu
Hi David,
Sorry, my mistake :) LGPL covers both cases I sketched.
For now I'd like to hear first from our key contributors how they feel
about the general idea. There's no reason to hurry with this, I'll try
to settle it with final proposal before we move to a final stable 2.6.
-Ton-
--
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Dan Eicher wrote:
> >
> > I believe it's important to many users (especially, but not limited to
> > corporate users) to have a secondary 'proprietary plugin market',
>
> > That option has been discussed and all but approved, the only hitch is
> the
> plugin wri
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 position on what we want for the future in general
is still releva
On 22/11/2010 8:06 PM, Dan Eicher wrote:
> So, yeah, according to the FSF a stolen version is ok to distribute...
> not that I agree with their reasoning on this though.
This is also the conclusion of the legal representation I've been able
to talk to about it (in regards to licensing software whi
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Benjamin Tolputt
wrote:
>
> On 22/11/2010 10:46 AM, Dan Eicher wrote:
> > More likely your crime would preclude you from being protected under
> > thelicensing terms since you were never the legal recipient of said
> > software. Just because something is under the
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 7:20 AM, Alex Combas wrote:
> 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
>> c
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 3:56 AM, Alex Combas wrote:
> 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
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 22/11/2010 10:46 AM, Dan Eicher wrote:
> More likely your crime would preclude you from being protected under
> thelicensing terms since you were never the legal recipient of said
> software. Just because something is under the GPL doesn't give anyone carte
> blanche permission to use, modify a
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Benjamin Tolputt wrote:
>
> It may be illegal (for example) for me to hack their network (& hence be
> arrested), but it is not illegal for me to distribute any GPL software I
> find there so long as they recieved it from elsewhere without changing it
> themselves
>
> I believe it's important to many users (especially, but not limited to
> corporate users) to have a secondary 'proprietary plugin market', because
> they get benefit from being able to buy those plugins and use them to get
> work done, instead of waiting for a community to author them, or tryin
On 22/11/2010 3:09 AM, David Jeske wrote:
> It doesn't do Blender any good to call commercial companies "wrong" for
> being concerned about the GPL and avoiding it. Blender will still be out the
> users. Maya and 3dsmax will still be the most popular animation tools. I'm
> beginning to feel like a
On 22/11/2010 2:59 AM, Martin Poirier wrote:
> "A pay dispute, a network hack, an intern wanting to get some cred online"
Yes, and this was all in the context of the *third party studio*. The pay
dispute was between one studio (the developers) and the other (third party),
not internal. The other
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Dan Eicher wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 9:09 AM, David Jeske wrote:
> > ...I'm beginning to feel like a minority in wanting Blender to one day
> > become a real disruptive open-source alternative to these commercial
> tools.
> >
> > And why does Blender need
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 9:09 AM, David Jeske wrote:
> ...I'm beginning to feel like a minority in wanting Blender to one day
> become a
> real disruptive open-source alternative to these commercial tools.
>
> And why does Blender need to change it's license to do this?
You seem to equate 'succes
Hi,
blenderw...@gmail.com (2010-11-21 at 1117.09 -0800):
> e) the company is sued by the FSF for breaking GPL.
The FSF can only sue if they own the copyright. And that is exactly
what they do and why they ask for copyright assignment for
contributions to FSF code. In Blender case, it would had to
--- On Sun, 11/21/10, Alex Combas wrote:
> I do not think you understand what exactly he is saying.
You would think wrong.
>
> [SNIP]
>
> So in this case the "stealing" and "leaking" of the code is
> not what causes
> them to be sued
> it is simply a matter of proof to show what the company i
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:50 AM, Campbell Barton wrote:
> And regarding this making companies paranoid - this is conjecture, But
> if some group choose to be ignorant & paranoid then this is their own
> foolishness.
>
That depends on who needs who. The companies don't need Blender. There are
plen
--- 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 did say:
"A pay dispute, a network hack, an intern wanting to get some cred
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, but one
willingly given to another party as the quote I was replying to was
about working with contracted third-party studios. In that case,
--- On Sun, 11/21/10, Benjamin Tolputt wrote:
> Remember, the GPL explicitly prohibits adding restrictions
> to the source
> code distribution. So contracts cannot require that the GPL
> extended
> code be kept inhouse and sue for it in the case said clause
> is broken.
> Well, *sue & win*, giv
On 20/11/2010 2:27 AM, Jason van Gumster wrote:
> Furthermore, I'm not sure how the 'sharing with 3rd party contractors
> constitutes distribution' argument holds any water. Are you saying that these
> companies - many of which are used to treating source code as trade secret -
> are going to have
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Campbell Barton wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Alex Combas wrote:
>> 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
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Alex Combas wrote:
> 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. Than
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.
The majority settle out of court, but the
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...
___
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers@blender.org
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-commi
Hi,
Since relicensing is going to be very difficult and communicating from
another process messy, maybe we could simply do this.
If there is agreement, we could make a statement as developers that we
don't consider certain things (external render engines, game engines,
exporter libraries) as a de
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
I agree that company lawyers tend to be paranoid. I deal with that
frequently in oil/gas equipment manufacturing.
> Imagine the fear that making just one false step and you could be legally
> forced to open-source your top secret proprietary project.
>
Has anyone here ever heard of a single cas
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Alex Combas wrote:
> 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 sof
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 confirm that? By virtue of the fact that
Alex Combas wrote:
> Similarly, virtually zero companies actually go the route of making a
> modified internal version of GPL software.
How would someone confirm that? By virtue of the fact that it's not meant for
external distribution, it's obviously something that wouldn't by widely
publicize
--- On Thu, 11/18/10, Alex Combas wrote:
> > But there' s always a way to monetize 'free', just ask
> Red Hat.
>
>
> Apples and oranges.
> Redhat doesn't sell software, they sell services and
> support.
Support is also a vast chunk of Autodesk's revenue.
Martin
___
I just want to raise a point somewhat related to the GPL: A closed
source API must be both stable and a stable ABI, a GPL API need not.
In order for closed source plugins to work reasonably well, the parts of
Blender they interface with must be stable, both in the sense that the
functions work the
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 actively make profits
> from
> > their sales? Vi
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 actively make profits from
> their sales? Virtually none, unless they tie it to hardware as in the case
> of Andro
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 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 really 'distribution' and so
> the closed-source
> code does not need to be
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 2:24 PM, Dan Eicher wrote:
> > This contradicts the information I see in the industry, and both the
> legal
> > and my laymen's understanding of the GPL. Is there some company that
> could
> > publish a case study about how they feel it safe to build closed-source
> > ext
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Ivailo Stoimenov wrote:
> A have some questions...
>
> Which part of Blender will an extension use?
> If it just has access to an API which provides user data (mesh data,
> materials and such) and a way to return some processed data to Blender so
> this extension
On 18/11/2010 11:40 a.m., Ivailo Stoimenov wrote:
> A have some questions...
>
> Which part of Blender will an extension use?
> If it just has access to an API which provides user data (mesh data,
> materials and such) and a way to return some processed data to Blender so
> this extension is indepe
A have some questions...
Which part of Blender will an extension use?
If it just has access to an API which provides user data (mesh data,
materials and such) and a way to return some processed data to Blender so
this extension is independent work.
If it doesnot use some or Blenders internal libs
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:16 PM, David Jeske wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Ton Roosendaal wrote:
>
> > In discussions at Siggraph with some people working in studios, they
> > mentioned to have solved it by creating a fully separated "open
> > domain" for software, vs their own "c
I'd like to propose something that will remove the *other factor* in
this equation, "the donated time factor"
It seems apparent that some coders feel it unfair if they donate time to
Blender for the common good, and another coder comes along and creates a
plugin that is commercial: Well fair en
I think this discussion may have run it's course, as I think both sides have
expressed their views. I have a few closing comments. If there are next
steps, I think it's really up to Ton and the Blender Foundation to consider
and propose them, because it is likely only through their action that
some
Hi all,
I have good connections with other OS Foundations and FSF, practical
experiences with how corporations manage (or not) to us GPL I can try
to gather. Also best practices in what's accepted to be legal for
companies is interesting to hear more of.
In discussions at Siggraph with some
On 16/11/2010 9:22 PM, Alex Combas wrote:
> But I'm not a lawyer so my opinion is just an opinion.
One must always also remember that, even if you are a lawyer, claims
made about the GPL are still opinions until tested in court. It is one
of the reasons commercial companies avoid linking to GPL c
I think this mechanism Alex brought up is an important one to consider. In
addition I've referenced some additional FSF documentation about GPL vs
LGPL.
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 2:22 AM, Alex Combas wrote:
> > The wording here, even in the case of a manual exception, refers to the
> > non-GPL cod
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 existance before the authoring
> of
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Campbell Barton wrote:
> @David Jeske, at least twice you point to The GIMP, as an example of
> software that is limited by the GPL.
> This in-fact is incorrect. The GIMP has already resolved this by
> providing a LGPL libgimp which closed source plug-ins my link t
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, 11/15/10, Roger Wickes wrote:
> sounds like we should make the new
> Python API LGPL, if it's ok with Campbell
> since he's writing it :) I have in the past and plan on
> writing proprietary code
> in Python that uses Blender as the render engine.
The Python API depends on the C
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 5:41 PM, David Jeske wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Dan Eicher wrote:
>
> If an employee acts improperly and releases a binary which contains both
> GPL
> and non-GPL code, the GPL says the source code must be released. There are
> no provisions for "withdrawin
On 16/11/2010 1:29 PM, Dan Eicher wrote:
> And it doesn't strike you as strange that there is 'great risk' in keeping
> your changes to yourself (while profiting from 'costless' labor of others)
> while passing the changes back to the project is pretty much the textbook
> definition of a 'mutually
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 6:41 PM, David Jeske wrote:
>
> If an employee acts improperly and releases a binary which contains both
> GPL
> and non-GPL code, the GPL says the source code must be released. There are
> no provisions for "withdrawing" the distribution. The moment it happens,
> the
> com
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:41 AM, David Jeske wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Dan Eicher wrote:
>
>> There's actually two issues being discussed here, the ability to use GPL'd
>> software *in house* and the ability to distribute non-GPL'd extensions.
>>
>> The first needs no license chan
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Dan Eicher wrote:
> There's actually two issues being discussed here, the ability to use GPL'd
> software *in house* and the ability to distribute non-GPL'd extensions.
>
> The first needs no license change at all, companies just need to be careful
> not to releas
on my book and
training course, as well as information about my latest activities. Use coupon
Papasmurf for $15 off!
- Original Message
From: David Jeske
To: bf-blender developers
Sent: Mon, November 15, 2010 4:04:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Bf-committers] extension clause
My large previou
Out of curiosity does the BF have a lawyer in this department?
It seems to be a topic that comes up time and time again without a clear
solution. It always seems to revolve around a "lawyer"
I would certainly be willing to donate some money towards a lawyer to
get a real legal solution to this
--- On Mon, 11/15/10, Matt Ebb wrote:
> From: Matt Ebb
> Subject: Re: [Bf-committers] extension clause
> To: "bf-blender developers"
> Received: Monday, November 15, 2010, 5:01 PM
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Dan
> Eicher
> wrote:
> > There'
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Dan Eicher wrote:
> There's actually two issues being discussed here, the ability to use GPL'd
> software *in house* and the ability to distribute non-GPL'd extensions.
Actually three if you count what I raised: the ability to distributed
open source extensions th
There's actually two issues being discussed here, the ability to use GPL'd
software *in house* and the ability to distribute non-GPL'd extensions.
The first needs no license change at all, companies just need to be careful
not to release their (presumably extremely valuable) software into the wild
My large previous post was focused around the reasoning behind my position.
I didn't want my suggestions for how to improve the situation to be lost in
it. Here are a few concrete suggestions. Note that in making these
suggestions, I'm not attempting to judge what would be required to make
these ch
I apologize in advance for the long post.
(1) @ Ton : this is not a perception issue, this is the current legal
interpretion of the GPL. It is not legally okay to write, use, or distribute
binary code modules that links directly with, and is dependent on, GPL code
without triggering a need to GPL
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
> totally free. In that sense a
that Blender is ignoring. An OSS project with a goal to support a professional
community will surely do well.
From: Damir Prebeg
To: bf-blender developers
Sent: Sun, November 14, 2010 11:47:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Bf-committers] extension clause
> Sorry, but
Hi David,
So the issue is not the license itself, but the perception? The latter
is something we can work on by cooperating with companies and give
them more confidence. After all, our code license is not controlled by
the FSF (considered untrusted?), but by BF and a large amount of
indivi
Hi David,
do you have any specific use case in mind? Some examples could help make
this conversation more practical... if we stay too much on the theoretical
side I'm afraid we won't reach any conclusion (too few lawyers on this list)
;)
I've been working for the past five years in VFX and animat
> Sorry, but I think this is quite short sighted.
>
> If people could easily build closed source extensions to blender, it would
> not benefit blender itself, but it WOULD benefit the blender community.
Nothing stops those big companies to create closed source plug-ins for
Blender but a pure capit
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Martin Poirier wrote:
> > Don't make the mistake of thinking that "doing it in secret" is a
> good enough answer for a company.
>
> It's not a matter of secret or not. The GPL is a distribution license, if
> you don't distribute your modifications, you can do what
--- On Sun, 11/14/10, Alex Combas wrote:
> Personally, I don't like anyone forcing anyone to do
> anything, and I think
> it is more important
> that people have freedom than code have freedom.
That's a matter of point of view. The GPL guaranties freedom to the users, not
to the authors.
Per
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 this regard since it is really
>
--- On Sun, 11/14/10, David Jeske wrote:
> Don't make the mistake of thinking that "doing it in
> secret" is a good
> enough answer for a company.
It's not a matter of secret or not. The GPL is a distribution license, if you
don't distribute your modifications, you can do whatever you want.
>
> > 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.
If companies can use blender in their creative pipelines, then it will mean
more blender users and more blender developers. In the 3d community blender
i
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 this regard since it is really
> just two options:
>
> a) make your code open source
> b) keep you
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
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. After all we
all see how they are protective about their legal rights and some of them
make their living by suing people around for all kinds of infringements. But
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:19 PM, David Jeske wrote:
> I think my post was mis-interpreted. I'm not trying to discuss the point of
> commercially distributed binary extensions.
Another issue related to this is the ambiguity of connecting blender
to non-GPL code, even if the plugin/extension code
I think my post was mis-interpreted. I'm not trying to discuss the point of
commercially distributed binary extensions.
I am sharing the information, that at least in Silicon Valley, companies I'm
aware of DO NOT feel comfortable linking their propritary source to GPL even
if they plan never to di
As Aurel said, GPL's clauses work on distribution, so as long as your
extensions are in-house, there is no requirement that you distribute
your source.
But also, aside from allowing the publishing of proprietary extensions
being a bad idea, as it was discussed last month, it's probably
impossible.
Hi David,
I can only give you a technical and a community viewpoint on this. I am
no professional on GPL-licensing.
I see some community-'issues' with this.
* The benefit for Blender community is better adoption. (in business
terms a weak benefit)
* You propose Blender community effort is n
In my opinion we can do very well without any proprietary extensions.
GPL doesn't require you to release any "private" code, so if you want
to integrate blender into your own studio pipeline with proprietary
libs, you don't run into problems.
And no, I don't think blender will profit in any way, w
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
