[Bf-committers] copyright and suzanne

Ton Roosendaal ton at blender.org
Wed Dec 15 10:36:13 CET 2004 

Hi,

D.J.Capelis sent met the 'artist faq' about GPL, which still has to be  
put on our website yes (long todo lists here :).

FAQ 2:

2) When is my work covered by the GPL?
	Anything you create with Blender - whether it is graphics, movies,  
scripts, exported 3d files or the .blend files themselves - is your  
sole property, and can be licensed or sold under any conditions you  
prefer.  (See below for a note about stand-alone executables.)

I can add such a statement to the copyright.txt in our distributions.  
Right now that .txt is more of a standard disclaimer, but it fits well  
to add here.

I don't feel like making an explicit exception for Suzanne, nor for the  
Magic texture nor for usage of the Slurph option - to name a few  
Blender artistic features. For any license you can easily end up  
nitpicking details and find the grey areas where potential disputes  
could arise. Leave such issues to the lawyers - if that even ever is  
necessary.

But you're right that we cannot be clear enough to everyone what's the  
right they have with Blender.

It was posted before here, but here's the FAQ again;

-------------------------------------

1.In a few sentences, what is the GPL?
2.When is my work covered by the GPL?
3.What about my python scripts?
4.So I can make games without having to worry about the GPL, right?
5.What if I take screenshots of the blender interface?
6.So I own the copyright to all output?
7.What about the splashscreen and icons?
8.Can I give Blender to my co-workers or employees?
9.Can I change Blender and give it to my co-workers or employees?
10.Can my organization use Blender internally without giving up our  
valuable changes to our competitors?
11.How does the GPL and Blender benefit me?
12.What's the coolest thing about open-source from an artist's  
perspective?
13.What's the worst thing about open-source from an artist's  
perspective?
14.Why don't I see more artists using products under the GPL?  Is it  
the GPL's fault?
15.What big graphics firms use the GPL and other open-source licenses?


1) In a few sentences, what is the GPL?
	The GPL license gives end-users additional rights that are normally  
reserved to the copyright holder, such as distributing and making  
copies of work (in this case Blender), make derivative works (ie add  
new features to Blender), and the freedom to sell the work to others.   
These additional rights are granted as long as the end-user also grants  
these same rights to their end-users under the terms of the GPL, and as  
long as the individual abides by the terms of the GPL.

2) When is my work covered by the GPL?
	Anything you create with Blender - whether it's graphics, movies,  
scripts, exported 3d files or the .blend files themselves - is your  
sole property, and can be licensed or sold under any conditions you  
prefer.  (See below for a note about stand-alone executables.)

3) What about my python scripts?
	Python scripts are completely separate from Blender's source code and  
the author of the script maintains complete control over the copyright.  
  You can also use python scripts to link into non-GPL applications,  
this way you may extend Blender without violating the GPL.

4) So I can make games without having to worry about the GPL, right?
	That is correct, games are program output and therefore not covered by  
the GPL.  The Blender team is committed to making sure that Blender can  
be used for both GPL and non-GPL games without any license conflicts.   
With stand-alone games however, any data that is included inside the  
actual stand-alone executable is covered by the GPL, if this is a  
problem then you should set up the stand-alone player so it reads from  
external .blend files.

5) What if I take screen-shots of the blender interface?
	Copyright law in different countries actually differ in this area.   
Please consult legal advice if you're unsure.

6) So I own the copyright to all output?
	In almost every circumstance for blender, only the code and other  
GPL'd files themselves are covered.  Any output of such material is  
copyright the person who produced the output, in this case, the artist.

7) What about the splash-screen and icons?
	The splash-screen and icons are GPL'd material therefore when using  
them the terms of the GPL must be followed.  Usage of the Blender Logo,  
as it is not under the GPL, is described in <link me>this  
document</link me>.

8) Can I give Blender to my co-workers or employees?
	Of course, you may give any of the versions of Blender on  
Blender3d.org or Blender.org to your friends.  After 2.25 every version  
of blender can be distributed under the GPL.  Most of the older  
versions as well, so long as they aren't the old NAN builds.

9) Can I change Blender and give it to my co-workers or employees?
	Yes, but if you make modifications you must comply with the GPL and if  
they request the source code you have to distribute that to them as  
well.  You can charge for the version of blender you give to your  
friends even, but it must be licensed under the GPL, and you may not  
charge an unreasonable fee for the source code.

10) Can my organization use Blender internally without giving up our  
valuable changes to our competitors?
	Blender becomes better because of valuable code contributions, we  
encourage your organization to contribute your code back unless it is  
absolutely vital.  However the GPL does allow your organization to use  
a modified version of Blender internally without offering the  
source-code as long as you do not distribute it outside your company or  
organization.

11) How does the GPL and Blender benefit me?
	The GPL allows for developers to work on blender without worry that  
their work could be put into a closed application.  The GPL makes it so  
that all contributers must make their code open, this means that if  
someone distributes a version of blender with a cool feature, everyone  
can have it.

12) What's the coolest thing about open-source from an artist's  
perspective?
	From an artist's perspective the openness of the community that forms  
around an open-source project is probably the best thing.  An open  
community and development process allows artists to directly talk with  
programmers, if there's a feature that an artist needs, he or she can  
directly e-mail a developer about it.  If an artist encounters a bug  
that needs fixing, he or she can track it in the bug tracking system.

13) What's the worst thing about open-source from an artist's  
perspective?
	The only disadvantage to open-source is that you are mostly on an even  
playing field because everyone has the same rights that you do to the  
software you're using.  This means that you have to actually produce  
superior artwork in a competitive environment and can't just relay on  
superior technology.  Depending on your view of things, this may be an  
advantage.

14) Why don't I see more artists using products under the GPL?  Is it  
the GPL's fault?
	Artists are using products under the GPL.  My favorite saying about  
why we don't hear about them more often is because they're busy using  
the products in their job.  Many people develop this code because they  
need this code, many artists use blender and don't feel the need to  
post all over the web about it, because it's the art that's important.

15) What big graphics firms use the GPL and other open-source licenses?
	OpenEXR is a project from Industrial Light and Magic, it is licensed  
under the a modified BSD license.  Many firms contribute to some of the  
more advanced open-source graphics software.  Open-Source licenses are  
being used in greater frequency by large graphics firms.

Disclaimer:  This document is no substitute for legal advice and just  
represents a subset of possible interpretations of the law and the GPL.

------------------

-Ton-


On 15 Dec, 2004, at 3:26, Tom Musgrove wrote:

> What is the copyright status of Suzanne?  It would appear to be under  
> the GPL, unless we have given an explicit exception.
>
> If it is under the GPL, then at this time, most renderings and blends,  
> etc. that include suzanne would technically be derived works, and thus  
> technically would be GPL violations if they were not also distributed  
> under the GPL.
>
> It seems unlikely that that is our intent, thus I suggest we provide a  
> specific exception in the license for renderings, etc. that include  
> suzanne.  I realize this seems a rather minor point, but I think it is  
> necessary for license clarity.
>
> LetterRip
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at projects.blender.org
> http://projects.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
--
Ton Roosendaal  Blender Foundation ton at blender.org  
http://www.blender.org

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list