[Bf-committers] extension clause
blenderwell at gmail.com
Mon Nov 22 21:00:28 CET 2010
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Ton Roosendaal <ton at blender.org> wrote:
> 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.
You really nailed it with this post. Its really reassuring to see you
understand the issues and you are not opposed to the idea of non-GPL
licensing for extensions.
I look forward to hearing the results of your research.
More information about the Bf-committers