[Bf-committers] extension clause

David Jeske davidj at gmail.com
Mon Nov 15 03:10:01 CET 2010


>
> > I don't see any benefits for Blender if it would be "easier" for Silicon

> Valey guys to link their proprietary code with Blenders code.


If companies can use blender in their creative pipelines, then it will mean
more blender users and more blender developers. In the 3d community blender
is a promising project, but it's a footnote when compared with
Maya/Max/Lightwave/etc. Linux effectively replaced commercial Unix. MySQL
has dramatic marketshare vs Oracle, MS-SQL, and others. Both while remaining
open-source but by making it VIABLE for companies to use them. Blender has
the potential to do the same by making it viable for companies to use it.

I hope that one day Blender is a real competitor to Maya or 3dsmax. I hope
that one day 3d job requisitions might ask for Blender skills. I hope one
day 3d art and gaming studios that make commercial moves and commercial
games, make use of Blender as they are today using Linux and MySQL, and
countless other open source tools. Because when that happens, Blender will
be an excellent and first class 3d tool that is open-source and freely
available to all.

That day can only come if it's viable for companies to use Blender in the
ways they use Maya and Max without fearing a violation of the GPL. The
licensing today does not allow this.

> "IF IDENTIFIABLE SECTIONS of that work ARE NOT DERIVED FROM THE PROGRAM,

> and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
> themselves,
> > THEN THIS LICENSE, and its terms, DO NOT APPLY TO THOSE SECTIONS WHEN YOU
> > DISTRIBUTE THEM AS SEPARATE WORKS."
>
> I'm not a GPL expert or a lawyer, but I think that the important sentence
> is
> "and can be reasonably considered INDEPENDANT and SEPARATE works".


> Currently, if you write an extension/addon that uses any part of blender,
> or relies upon any part of blender, even just the python interface which is
> included with blender, then it can not reasonably be considered independant
> and separate, and thus it is subject to the terms of the GPL.
>

Exactly. AFAIK, the current legal interpretation is that if you don't link,
and you are not dependent on behavior, then you are "independent and
separate". Everything else is a grey area and depends on the paranoia of the
parties. Most I've talked to feel that writing an extension for GPLed
software which is dependent specifically on a GPLed API requires being under
the GPL. Which means you basically don't do it unless you are happy with
GPL.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that "doing it in secret" is a good
enough answer for a company.








>
> I do not think there is any reasonable way around this.
>


More information about the Bf-committers mailing list