[Bf-docboard] No Choice of License

[Ton Roosendaal]

Hi Docboarders,

I thought is was a sleeping mailing list. :)
Are the wiki moderators active on this list? I also noticed Stefano was  
still admin of the mailing list, I've taken over for the time being.

About Python script licenses: that's very easy: all scripts we  
distribute should be GPL (or compliant). That's because of GNU GPL  
ruling... I'm not going to redo the discussion here again, for that  
search bf-committers archives, or use that list to get clear answers.

The license of the 2.3 book is Blender Foundation copyright, so we can  
relicense it under another license too.

A proper standard Wiki doc/art license would be very welcome,  
especially  because we should allow third party writers to copy from  
it, and publish or remix books. Main issue to define: is it going to be  
copyleft (only share alike)?

My preference: get the opinions of the main contributors to wiki first.

-Ton-


On 9 Jun, 2008, at 14:44, Roger Wickes 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
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
--
Ton Roosendaal  Blender Foundation ton at blender.org  
http://www.blender.org