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

Alex Combas blenderwell at gmail.com
Thu Nov 25 08:19:12 CET 2010

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Benjamin Tolputt
<btolputt at internode.on.net> wrote:
> This I agree with too. LGPL will allow, if only through careful
> extraction of code into a shared library, the extraction of code from
> the Blender project into closed source projects. Personally, even though
> I am for the capability of Blender to use & support "proprietary
> plugins"; I am against changing the source code to LGPL. It has also
> been stated that this would be an impossibility.

I think a lot of people are agreeable to the idea of closed source
plugins for Blender.

But there is really no way to do that with the GPL ...unless you try
to break the GPL
somehow by using shims or some other sort of loophole.

But why continue to use the GPL if you are looking for ways to break it.

Why not just switch to a license which allows closed extensions?

Personally I am against trying to break the GPL and I would not
support such an effort.

That is why instead I made this proposal to switch, but it is safe to
say that this proposal has been completely rejected.

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list