[Bf-committers] GPL + Python, revisited

Ton Roosendaal ton at blender.org
Wed Apr 1 12:54:10 CEST 2009


Hi,

Internal or external doesn't matter; the issue is that *only* using our 
Python API doesn't make a script GPL. For all other calls to 
modules/libs/etc the GPL still applies.

There's still a grey-ish area though; In my opinion the dividing line 
is here;

OK is:
Creator publishes a Blender script mixed with own code, under own 
license.

Not OK is:
Creator publishes a Blender script, calling a library with own code, 
under own license.

OK is:
Creator publishes a Blender script, that calls scripts with own code, 
under own license.

The divider I think is "If the script runs in our own Interpretor". 
When the script calls code not running in our "Interpretor" you are 
making bindings to other facilities.

-Ton-

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ton Roosendaal  Blender Foundation   ton at blender.org    www.blender.org
Blender Institute BV  Entrepotdok 57A  1018AD Amsterdam The Netherlands

On 1 Apr, 2009, at 12:21, Nathan Letwory wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I think this generally looks good, but just to make sure I understood
> this correctly:
>
> When the Creator has written some scripts that are not directly in the
> .blend saved, but accessed ie. through a module on disk, then that
> module could be under a closed source license still?
>
> Just to verify, since you mention specifically data stored in .blend.
>
> Or is this handled through Martin's addition:
>
>>> This exception only applies to the Blender Python API. Scripts still
>>> have to follow the licenses of other code, bindings or libraries that
>>> they might use.
>
> /Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>



More information about the Bf-committers mailing list