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

Benjamin Tolputt btolputt at internode.on.net
Thu Nov 25 04:36:07 CET 2010

On 25/11/2010 10:09 AM, Martin Poirier wrote:
> I thought Ton was clear enough the first time, but apparently not, so let me reiterate:
> -----
> Based on feedback from key developers, the likelyhood there's a 
> relicense to LGPL happing is near zero. Let's focus on ways to get end-
> user level useful extensions possible.
> -----

I am personally quite happy to see Blender remain licensed as GPL
(especially as opposed to LGPL).

LGPL allows the functionality of Blender to be gutted and stuck into
another application. For example, it would be possible for C4D, Maya,
whatever to take the LSCM module and use it without contributing
anything back to Blender. A plugin, on the other hand, explicitly is
contributing to Blender (at least if it wants any kind of use/sales)
because it is an extension to the application as opposed to an
application being extended by Blender.

As things appear to stand (the plugin documentation is apparently only
current to Blender 2.31), we have a requirement of linking to Blender
"definition files" in order to be useful. Is there a reason that the
definition & plugin required header files need to be SOLELY GPL? Could
they not be distributed on their own as interface specifications under a
more lenient (perhaps BSD-with-credit) license?

There are copyright exceptions allowed for interface requirements
(should it be needed) and provided the header/def files were indeed used
only for interfacing with Blender - this solution seems feasible.
Especially if the Blender Foundation were to make an explicit statement
to their purpose and the licensing restrictions (or lack thereof) they
place upon them.


Benjamin Tolputt
Analyst Programmer

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list