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