[Bf-docboard] No Choice of License
Julian Oliver
julian at selectparks.net
Sun Jun 15 17:15:53 CEST 2008
..on or around Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 11:18:53AM +0200 Ton Roosendaal wrote:
> 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.
worth mentioning that for the Blender Manual at http://flossmanuals.net
we chose to go with the GPLv2. one of the arguments for this was that
code and Game Engine demos (in an upcoming chapter) will also fall under
the same license, keeping it all consistent from a legal standpoint.
http://flossmanuals.net/Blender/Credits
perhaps it's also worth mentioning that we'll eventually be selling a
little Blender book, also printable as a PDF (similar to the Audacity
Manual on the same site). after some discussion it was decided that the
GPL covers this outcome pretty well.
cheers,
julian
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-docboard mailing list
> Bf-docboard at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard
--
julian oliver
http://julianoliver.com
http://selectparks.net
messages containing HTML will not be read.
More information about the Bf-docboard
mailing list