[Bf-committers] extension clause

[Alex Combas]

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
> 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.
>
>

Hey Ton

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.