[Bf-committers] extension clause

[Alex Combas]

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Dan Eicher <dan at trollwerks.org> wrote:

> >
> > For
> > example, if I made an interesting game using the Blender Game Engine, I
> > could sell my game as a binary with my only obligation to release the
> > source
> > to all components of the Blender Game Engine I used, as well as any
> > improvements or changes I made to that code. My game-code could remain
> > closed and sold as a for-profit binary.
> >
>




> > You can do that now, your python code can be licensed how you please and
> art assets are protected by standard copyright law.
>
>
I think you are wrong here.

Only if your Python code is just a simply script which only calls Blenders
built in Python
Interpreter you can license it however you please.

However if your Python code links to _ANY_ compiled binary, even a compiled
binary which
you yourself wrote... then your Python script is considered to be
"extending" Blender, and thus
your script and your compiled binary must be licensed as GPL if you want to
distribute them
in any way.

However you are correct about art assets since they are considered program
output
which is not something covered by the GPL.

I'm sure you already know this of course, but your wording made it sound as
if any Python
script can be licensed however you wish and that simply is not true, the
moment any Python
script talks to anything other than Blender itself then it automatically
changes into GPL code
by law.