<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt">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:.<br>
<br>I am against a choice of licensing standards.No one has put forth any business reason why it makes sense otherwise. <br><br>
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<span style="font-weight: bold;"> the same license as the Blender software itself</span>. 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. <br><br>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! <br><br>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). <br><div> <br>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. <br></div>----------------<br>Sent by Roger Wickes for intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and contact Mr. Wickes immediately.<br><br><div>Atlantica Investments, Inc.<br>PO Box 680310, Marietta, GA 30068 USA<div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br><br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">----- Original Message ----<br>From: "bf-docboard-request@blender.org" <bf-docboard-request@blender.org><br>To: bf-docboard@blender.org<br>Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2008 6:00:20 AM<br>Subject: Bf-docboard Digest, Vol 41, Issue 7<br><br>
Send Bf-docboard mailing list submissions to<br> <a ymailto="mailto:bf-docboard@blender.org" href="mailto:bf-docboard@blender.org">bf-docboard@blender.org</a><br><br>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br> <a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard" target="_blank">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard</a><br>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br> <a ymailto="mailto:bf-docboard-request@blender.org" href="mailto:bf-docboard-request@blender.org">bf-docboard-request@blender.org</a><br><br>You can reach the person managing the list at<br> <a ymailto="mailto:bf-docboard-owner@blender.org" href="mailto:bf-docboard-owner@blender.org">bf-docboard-owner@blender.org</a><br><br>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>than "Re: Contents of Bf-docboard digest..."<br>Today's
Topics:<br><br> 1. Re: Script Licensing (joe)<br><!-- kill --><div><br><br>-----Inline Message Follows-----<br><br>
> Hrm. You could try contacting some admins. We went with OCL because the<br>
> manual is OCL, and it seemed to make sense (as back then the wiki was<br>
> primarily for user documentation/developer documents).<br>
<br>
</div>Right, it was all about the old 2.3 manual, which was OCL. Anyway, is<br>
there any reason at all why the contents of the entire wiki must be<br>
licensed the same? Why not just state: 'open content, unless otherwise<br>
stated on the page itself' or even something more restrictive like:<br>
'open content, unless otherwise declared as GPL on the page itself' or<br>
'open content, with the exception of GPL for all contained<br>
program/script code'<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Matt<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">_______________________________________________<br>
Bf-docboard mailing list<br>
<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:Bf-docboard@blender.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:Bf-docboard@blender.org">Bf-docboard@blender.org</a><br>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard</a><br>
</div></div></div><br>
</div>_______________________________________________<br>Bf-docboard mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:Bf-docboard@blender.org" href="mailto:Bf-docboard@blender.org">Bf-docboard@blender.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard" target="_blank">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard</a><br><!-- kill --><div><br><br>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----<br><br>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?<br><br>Joe<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Matt Ebb <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:matt@mke3.net" target="_blank" href="mailto:matt@mke3.net">matt@mke3.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d">On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 4:53 AM, joe <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:joeedh@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:joeedh@gmail.com">joeedh@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Hrm. You could try contacting some admins. We went with OCL because the<br>
> manual is OCL, and it seemed to make sense (as back then the wiki was<br>
> primarily for user documentation/developer documents).<br>
<br>
</div>Right, it was all about the old 2.3 manual, which was OCL. Anyway, is<br>
there any reason at all why the contents of the entire wiki must be<br>
licensed the same? Why not just state: 'open content, unless otherwise<br>
stated on the page itself' or even something more restrictive like:<br>
'open content, unless otherwise declared as GPL on the page itself' or<br>
'open content, with the exception of GPL for all contained<br>
program/script code'<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Matt<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">_______________________________________________<br>
Bf-docboard mailing list<br>
<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:Bf-docboard@blender.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:Bf-docboard@blender.org">Bf-docboard@blender.org</a><br>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></div><br>
</body></html>