[Bf-committers] extension clause

Alex Combas blenderwell at gmail.com
Mon Nov 22 08:20:35 CET 2010

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Campbell Barton <ideasman42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> While this is what blenders GPL exception states it does seem quite
> fuzzy as to what it does/doesn't apply to.
> - python its self has many compiled extensions, ok so it
> cant/shouldn't apply to this case but where does it end?
> - what if the extension loads a module such as PIL, numpy, or
> PyGame???, I'm not sure in this case..
> - what if you write your own module but make it BSD/GPL/Apache and
> have it as a package which can be installed by debian's package
> manager for eg.
> So I'm guessing this is how it works...
> - You can write your own BSD module and include no problems - since
> this is what we do with python.
> - You can write your own GPL module as long as you include the same
> exception that blender its self has.
> - You CAN'T make use of a 3rd party GPL module unless they make the
> same allowances that blender does.

Hi Campbell,
I have a question for you.

The way it was explained to me is that you can license  your Blender
python script
any way you want (closed, BSD, GPL, foo, bar, baz) as long as it only
links to things
which were shipped as part of Blender and this includes the
interpreter and any modules
which are shipped along with the interpreter.

However if  your Blender python script links to anything which is not
distributed as part of
the Blender package then it is an extension and must be GPL licensed.

Is my understanding correct?

Also, how do you feel about the idea of relicensing Blender to be LGPL
similar to glibc?
In light of what the FSF has said particularly about LGPL and glibc.

Blender has obviously gotten by without the proprietary software
developers so far, is that
something you want to see continue, or do you think it would be a good
thing to open up this market?

"This is why we used the Lesser GPL for the GNU C library. After all,
there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would
have driven proprietary software developers to use another—no problem
for them, only for us."

Or to translate that into Blender terms...
"There are plenty of other (Animation/Modeling/Compositing) libraries,
using the GPL for ours would have driven proprietary software
developers to use another--no problem for them, only for us."

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list