[Bf-committers] GPLv3 Released (for license gurus).
shaul.kedem at gmail.com
Sun Jul 1 18:12:27 CEST 2007
Martin, you are correct,
my examples align with that idea.
Anyway, as I said, it worth thinking about; what is blender goal? to
be available for commercial companies (farms,consoles, etc.) as
"closed source" or not? if it is, maybe licensing under BSD is more
On 7/1/07, Martin Poirier <theeth at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Shaul Kedem <shaul.kedem at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/1/07, Campbell Barton <cbarton at metavr.com>
> > wrote:
> > > * do we care about 'tivoization'?
> > I think it is worth thinking about, scenarios which
> > come to mind: a
> > farm which gives special rendering services over
> > blender but won't
> > open the code, hardware with blender optimizations
> > which don't share
> > the code, blender game engine used as the bases of a
> > console (yeah, I
> > know that right now this all sounds like a leap)
> That's not quite what tivoization entails since
> distributing binaries and not source is already
> covered by V2 (and TiVO does distribute source, IIRC).
> What is targetted in this clause is hardware software
> locking, say, if someone distribute preinstalled
> renderfarm nodes with Blender on them but used
> hardware/software signing to prevent the nodes from
> running versions of Blender not signed with their
> private key or if Sony released Blender GE support in
> their PS4 but prevented it from running any home built
> versions (without locks).
> ____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat?
> Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
More information about the Bf-committers