[Bf-committers] extension clause

[Matt Ebb]

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:19 PM, David Jeske <davidj at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think my post was mis-interpreted. I'm not trying to discuss the point of
> commercially distributed binary extensions.

Another issue related to this is the ambiguity of connecting blender
to non-GPL code, even if the plugin/extension code that connects it is
GPL.

This seems to preclude ever being able to a plugin based (i.e. DLL/so)
renderer connection to any non-GPL render engine, like Vray or Arnold
for example, even if the connection code/plugin is GPL. From what I
understand the mere fact that somewhere along the line a header may be
included from a non-GPL source, will cause the whole thing to break
down in the eyes of licensing.

It's also quite inconsistent in the 'spirit of the license' since in
terms of licensing similar functionality is perfectly acceptable if
for example you use python to export to a renderer via a scene
description format (except of course it can be slower and not as
powerful for other kinds of functionality).

To me this is not even a matter of 'keeping blender free', since
blender's code base itself wouldn't really be modified, and even if
the connection code is GPL, it still wouldn't be allowed since it
links with a non-free library.


Matt