[Bf-committers] extension clause

Alex Combas blenderwell at gmail.com
Mon Nov 15 04:24:16 CET 2010

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Dan Eicher <dan at trollwerks.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Alex Combas <blenderwell at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > The current situation with blender is that developers are being told how
> > they must license their
> > code, and they have very little freedom in this regard since it is really
> > just two options:
> >
> > a) make your code open source
> > b) keep your code top secret forever
> >
> > That does not sound very exciting or encouraging to me.
> >
> Yep, that's your cost for 'free' because, you know, there's no such thing
> as
> a free lunch.
> Even if there were some pragmatic push to change the license I'm not too
> sure how much the folks who paid actual money to 'free' the code would
> appreciate such a move. If it weren't for them there would be zero freedom
> to even use much less hack on blender.
> Given the virtual impossibility of ever moving away from the GPL I'd say
> they got exactly what they paid for.

No, they didn't get what they paid for, they made a mistake due to

I believe that "GPL with exception for extensions" is what everyone actually
but they just didn't realize it at the time and now it is too late.

Many developers do not actually understand just how restrictive and
controlling the GPL is
they think "Oh freedom, thats great" but then they find out later that the
"freedom" Stallman
is talking about is not freedom for developers, its freedom for code. The
GPL forces developers
to free the code.

Personally, I don't like anyone forcing anyone to do anything, and I think
it is more important
that people have freedom than code have freedom.

> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> 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