[Bf-committers] A practical proposal for the task of re-licensing Blender

[Alex Combas]

if you distribute an LGPL application you MUST provide the source code

if you modify and distribute an LGPL application you MUST provide the
source code.

It is NO different than the GPL in this regard.

The only difference is that if a separate program links to an LGPL
program then the
separate program is not forced to be licensed as LGPL, but with GPL
then it is forced
to do so.

I think there are people here who do not understand this.


@Knapp

There are a billion closed source applications in this world, and yet
you are not starving.
Neither will you be starving if there is one more closed source
application in the world.

Blender itself will not ever be less free than it is now. If anyone
modifies Blender then
they must also distribute their modified source code.

I didn't want to write a long reply, but it looks like this will be a
long reply, and
this will also be my last reply on this subject since I'm giving up on it.

There are too many people opposed to something they don't understand.

But I would like to at least try to divorce some of that
misunderstanding before I go.

Take this example:

An artist uses Blender to create some art work, and they decide to sell it.
Nobody complains. It took the artist years of training and weeks of effort to
make their product. Nobody says "You used Blender to make your product,
Blender is free, you must make your product free or we will sue you."

A programmer comes along, the programmer does not modify Blender but instead
writes a separate program which uses Blender to do something special, something
which Blender can not do right now. It took the programmer years of
training and
weeks of effort to make their product. Just as much skill and effort
as the artist.
But now everyone screams at them "You used Blender to make your product,
Blender is free, you must make your product free or we will sue you."

I can understand people would be upset if the programmer had modified Blender
but he did NOT modify Blender at all, he simply used Blender in a similar way
that an artist would use Blender to create artwork.

LGPL would allow this programmer to earn a living just like an artist, but
GPL would put this programmer in jail for not making their product free.

If you are still confused please re-read the beginning of this email.

@Brecht

"LGPL for example also means properietary software could take parts of
Blender code and use it"

Why is that a problem if the source code is still published just as it
is now under GPL?
You do understand that LGPL means the source code must be published, right?
I would have thought that the legal requirement to publish the source
code would be enough
to make Blender developers happy.


@Doug

"Is there a way to have closed source extensions work within Blender?"

No, that is the whole point, if you link to GPL code then you must
license your code as GPL.

Any attempt to do anything else is an attempt to break the GPL, or to
find a loophole in the GPL.

The whole point of the GPL is to stop that behavior.