[Bf-committers] extension clause

Michael Williamson michaelw at cowtoolsmedia.co.uk
Mon Nov 22 22:21:00 CET 2010

What happens when a third party writes a script that links to an 
external library?

an example in the current code would be the quicktime libs....
THE USER has to sign up for the licence agreement of the quicktime sdk, 
obtain the source and then compile their own blender...

This is common in music software too for Steinbergs VST support: user 
gets SDK by signing up to EULA then compiles their own version....

It's fine in teh above cases to distribute the code without "Infecting" 
either Apples code or Steinbergs...

Both SDKs have a EULA that prohibits re-distribution, which presumably 
protects them... it's the end user doing the linking....

In blender's case this becomes interesting with say the Autodesk FBX sdk 
which has a similar restriction...

So here's what I don't "get":
Are things really any more complicated if a compile wasn't necessary?  
say if Quicktime support, VST or FBX  could be added via a python 
script? just because it's compiled on the fly?

Requiring the user to sign up to any "3rd party libs" agreement with a 
"no re-distribution" clause (common in commercial software) then there 
can surely be a commercial path to extend blender already existing....

That or Apple, Steinberg and Autodesk are already infected by the GPL by 
no act of their own...

I'm guessing this must be the case else the blender  Vray script would 
"infect" vray?

Or is the act of compiling the difference?

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list