[Bf-docboard] No Choice of License

Wed Jun 11 21:45:48 CEST 2008

Hi,

Can some sort of decision made upon the issue? It would be nice to add
more scripts to the wiki. The main reason why I raised the issue was
that it is not nice to restrict scripts to only Open Content License
which is fairly restrictive itself.

Sincerely,
Juho "BeBraw" Vepsäläinen

2008/6/9 Chris Burt <duositex+blender at gmail.com>:
> No offense Roger, but none of your examples/analogies really apply to
> the situation you're trying to describe. The licenses for the content
> on the Wiki, according to Matt's post, would be specified by their
> author, not the Blender Foundation. This would mean that if I wanted
> to publish a public domain tutorial on rigging, I'd be free to do so,
> but if I wanted to publish a creative commons share-alike
> non-commercial tutorial on the same topic, I'd have that freedom as
> well. There are aaaaallllll sorts of different kinds of "free" and
> "open" that contributors should be encouraged to take advantage of in
> my opinion. Restricting the Wiki to one license discourages the
> sharing of material across the boundaries of amateur and professional,
> something that the Blender community has been reasonably good at.
>
> I think the original concern is over scripts and code snippets
> published to the wiki, and protecting the rights of the authors of
> those materials despite them being published in a Wiki with a
> dissimilar license. But I didn't read the whole thread.
>
> --Chris
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Roger Wickes <rogerwickes at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> This docboard post suggests that scripts hosted in the wiki Scripts folder
>> and subfolders be provided under non-GPL licesnes, specficially "a choice of
>> GPL, LGPL, BSD and zlib licenses:.
>>
>> I am against a choice of licensing standards.No one has put forth any
>> business reason why it makes sense otherwise.
>>
>> I'm very sorry, but I think the suggestion that there be a variety of
>> choices of "license of the month" is totally unacceptable. If any software
>> is supported by the Blender Foundation, either through the resources used to
>> house and distribute it (the wiki), or community member's time to add it,
>> then it must all fall under the same license as the Blender software itself.
>> It's like saying, here, have this toy Buzz Lightyear. You can play all you
>> want with his left and right legs, but the arms you cannot turn to the left,
>> and you cannot rip off the head and use it to make another toy. Oh, and you
>> can put him on your desk at work, but you have to take out the batteries
>> because you cannot play with him at work.
>>
>> If you want to make money from Blender, write the code, lock it down,
>> advertise it and sell it...but don't expect BF to distribute it for you and
>> open itself up to license administration and possible damages! Imagine
>> coming across a page in the User Manual with a banner at the top that says
>> "Do not read this if you use Blender professionally. Free use of this
>> content is restricted to amateurs. If you later become a professional and
>> you learned something from reading this page, send $2 to Joe Schmoe as a
>> license fee." Another anaology is that you make a wooden toy in your garage.
>> You give it to your neighbor and ask him to sell it at his garage sale, but
>> with the following restrictions...etc etc. Imagine the mess that could
>> result!
>>
>> Another analogy is Blender itself. Imagine if you could use Blender for
>> professional paid work, but not cloth. If you used cloth, you had to send
>> Genscher $.01 for every frame that was rendered using the cloth sim. Not
>> only does it violate the spirit of Blender, it is impossible to administer
>> (enforce, collect, track).
>>
>> I am going to cc Ton on this, because maybe I am off-base. But, as president
>> of BF, I think he needs to be aware and give us some guidance. Perhaps it
>> will warrant discussion on our Sunday meeting.
>> ----------------
>> Sent by Roger Wickes for intended recipient. If you are not the intended
>> recipient, please delete this message and contact Mr. Wickes immediately.
>>
>> Atlantica Investments, Inc.
>> PO Box 680310, Marietta, GA 30068 USA
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: "bf-docboard-request at blender.org" <bf-docboard-request at blender.org>
>> To: bf-docboard at blender.org
>> Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2008 6:00:20 AM
>> Subject: Bf-docboard Digest, Vol 41, Issue 7
>>
>> Send Bf-docboard mailing list submissions to
>>     bf-docboard at blender.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>     http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>     bf-docboard-request at blender.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>     bf-docboard-owner at blender.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Bf-docboard digest..."
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>   1. Re: Script Licensing (joe)
>>
>>
>> -----Inline Message Follows-----
>>
>>> Hrm.  You could try contacting some admins.  We went with OCL because the
>>> manual is OCL, and it seemed to make sense (as back then the wiki was
>>> primarily for user documentation/developer documents).
>>
>> Right, it was all about the old 2.3 manual, which was OCL. Anyway, is
>> there any reason at all why the contents of the entire wiki must be
>> licensed the same? Why not just state: 'open content, unless otherwise
>> stated on the page itself' or even something more restrictive like:
>> 'open content, unless otherwise declared as GPL on the page itself' or
>> 'open content, with the exception of GPL for all contained
>> program/script code'
>>
>> Matt
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-docboard mailing list
>> Bf-docboard at blender.org
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-docboard mailing list
>> Bf-docboard at blender.org
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard
>>
>>
>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>
>> GPL sounds like an overly restrictive license for every script though
>> (especially little cookbook scripts).  What about a choice of GPL, LGPL, BSD
>> and zlib licenses?
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Matt Ebb <matt at mke3.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 4:53 AM, joe <joeedh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Hrm.  You could try contacting some admins.  We went with OCL because
>>> > the
>>> > manual is OCL, and it seemed to make sense (as back then the wiki was
>>> > primarily for user documentation/developer documents).
>>>
>>> Right, it was all about the old 2.3 manual, which was OCL. Anyway, is
>>> there any reason at all why the contents of the entire wiki must be
>>> licensed the same? Why not just state: 'open content, unless otherwise
>>> stated on the page itself' or even something more restrictive like:
>>> 'open content, unless otherwise declared as GPL on the page itself' or
>>> 'open content, with the exception of GPL for all contained
>>> program/script code'
>>>
>>> Matt
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bf-docboard mailing list
>>> Bf-docboard at blender.org
>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-docboard mailing list
>> Bf-docboard at blender.org
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-docboard mailing list
> Bf-docboard at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard
>