[Bf-committers] extension clause

Ton Roosendaal ton at blender.org
Mon Nov 22 15:58:22 CET 2010

Hi all,

Phew, mind boggling discussions here. I know GNU GPL isn't easy to  
understand, but it would improve readability of the traffic on this  
list if we can stop with interpretations of the GNU GPL now. :)

However, taking a position on what we want for the future in general  
is still relevant.
David raised an issue - and he wasn't the first one - how to cope with  
the fact that GPL is not very permissive to extend or use with  
proprietary development.

Basically there are two cases we can investigate:

1) Allow anyone to extend Blender, linked dynamically with scripts or  
libraries or plugins
2) Allow anyone to dynamically link in Blender libraries in their own  

The LGPL will only allow the latter. For the first we have to devise  
an extension clause (if we want to stick to GPL).


- I can do the next weeks/months more research to gather information  
via other OS projects about their experience with GPL in commercial  
environments. I'll report back on this.
- Finding out from significant contributors to Blender how they  
personally feel about re-licensing or extensions

My personal opinion:

I don't like the idea to switch entire Blender to LGPL much. Blender  
is a 3D artist tool, not a development environment with libraries.  
It's positive that people can add libraries in Blender without forcing  
them to make it available for everyone as LGPL.

Allowing Blender to be extended more easily (scripts, plugins, libs)  
is more interesting. In that respect I recognize practices in studios,  
and how support companies like to work.


Ton Roosendaal  Blender Foundation   ton at blender.org    www.blender.org
Blender Institute   Entrepotdok 57A  1018AD Amsterdam   The Netherlands

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list