[Bf-committers] BL and GPL

[Ton Roosendaal]

Hi,

> I think the dafault assumption is that contributers agree to the BL.    
> If you
> don't, speak up now....

Yah, good to refresh this topic regularly. At the 2002 conference we  
spent time on it, and about 7-8 months ago I've reminded it as well at  
this list.

Might be good to give all the info again, added with some more insight  
in the history of all this.

- First, regarding the Solid topic: "dual licensed" means that both  
licenses are effective, but both don't have to apply together. Blender  
can legally link with single licensed GPL projects, or with another  
dual licensed GPL project. For such code then the "BL" or "QPL" part is  
not valid. Also when we mix our code with pure GPL code, we need to  
remove the "BL" notice from the source.

- The Blender GPL component (in all our sources) makes our code  
effectively 'Free Software', and this dual license construction has the  
approval of the FSF. In the end all our code remains GPL, and only  
parts of it will be BL.

- The Blender BL component doesn't mean for developers they transfer  
copyright or anything exclusive, but it allows the Foundation to  
license code to third parties outside of GPL. At least it applies to  
all former NaN code, which is still copyright-owned by NaN. A full  
license description of a BL hasn't been written yet. The official  
notice can be read here: http://www.blender.org/BL/

- The Blender 'BL' component was a construction which proved to be  
useful to have the investors in NaN agreeing on going for open source.  
They were afraid for some other company just picking up the sources and  
start making money with it... :-)
My original preference - just making it all BSD licensed - would never  
have had their approval for that reason. By choosing the most 'radical'  
of the open source licenses (GPL is something most companies reject)  
and combining it with a commercial license (BL) there would always be  
an opportunity for future commercial exploitation of the code.

- During negotiations on this topic, I managed to get the BL  
"ownership" (the right to exploit) within the Blender Foundation. It  
includes the right to use the Blender brand and all web and art content  
as created in the NaN period. Over revenues of this the BF has to pay a  
reasonable fee to NaN Holding.
I am bound to a strict NDA on this contract, so cannot reveil further  
details on this... it's less than 50%, that's what I can say).

- For as long we stay in GPL land, there's no issue at all. But to  
decide whether or not the BL will be activated, three important issues  
have to be solved:
1. verify that all contributors to the BL licensed code agree on this.
2. make sure the Blender non-BL compenents (Python, ODE, Solid, Ftgl)  
don't conflict with it for the client
3. provide evidence to everyone (at blender.org) that such business  
will benefit Blender, it's development community and the BF.

The first point is a matter of debate... whether this goes automatic  
(like for GPL) or whether it should be a written permission. According  
to the FSF it's the latter. And this is something I might ask for once  
a BL is activated.

The second point depends... still most of our external components are  
either LGPL or have another license that allows linking with closed  
source. For Solid however, a BL client will have to negotiate a deal  
with the Solid owner as well. Which is quite fair I think.

The third point is what bothers me most... evidence is just not there!  
All contacts I had in the past year on commercial licensing just  
couldn't provide sufficient revenues to justify such a move. I even  
found out that in most cases potential clients could do it within GPL  
as well.

- So! The "BL" is still in deep sleep. I prefer to keep this an option,  
for some moment in the future when such business might become  
interesting. But when time passes by, it might become less and less  
attractive, especially because of the involvement of NaN with it. But  
that could be just a metter of renegotiating, of course... :)

To avoid lengthy discussions on this topic, yes I realize that some  
developers won't like to "work for" some NaN Holding and Blender  
Foundation to make bucks. That's why I am hesitant in activating it,  
and wait for true evidence how it will help Blender. On the other hand,  
I hope such developers realize they make use of code that's mostly  
written within a commercial environment. Still...

-Ton-



------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
--
Ton Roosendaal  Blender Foundation ton@blender.org  
http://www.blender.org