[Bf-committers] extension clause

Benjamin Tolputt btolputt at internode.on.net
Sun Nov 21 16:16:44 CET 2010

On 22/11/2010 2:12 AM, Martin Poirier wrote:
> Stealing a copy doesn't count as distribution.

The scenario I am talking about is not a "stolen" distribution, but one
willingly given to another party as the quote I was replying to was
about working with contracted third-party studios. In that case, the
distribution clause is invoked (it is no longer internal) and the
*third-party studio* has the right to distribute the software, as the
GPL prevents the original company from placing additional restrictions
on the GPL distribution.

To be clear, I am not talking about the initial companies developing the
extensions to Blender. I am solely (in this thread) talking about the
distribution to *third-party studios* for purposes of contracted work;
the topic of the statement I was refuting.

The FAQ point just below yours
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TradeSecretRelease) details
the very "trade secret" issue that my email was targeting. Either there
are no trade secrets in the distribution given to the third party studio
(& hence the distribution is allowed to be copied freely to anyone in
accordance with the GPL) or the copy has trade secrets in the
distribution & hence is unable to give it to them. They cannot have it
both ways (as per my experience with the GPL & as mentioned in the FAQ).


Benjamin Tolputt
Analyst Programmer

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list