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

[Thomas Dinges]

Hi,
first of all, right at the beginning of this mail, I also vote against LGPL!

When I joined the Blender SVN team in May 2009 I did it because I like 
Blender a lot, it's a great program and I use it myself as a hobby.
Lots of freelance developers like me do that in their free time, after 
school or after their work.
As Brecht already mentioned, with LGPL, commercial companies can grab 
our code and integrate it into their code base. (yes I know that they 
have to republish their changes under LGPL etc., but that’s not the point).

I don't have anything against people who want to use Blender 
commercially, on the contrary I am happy when I see people making money 
with it, because that shows us developers that we did something positive 
for the community. Something that helps other people.
You can create art, documentation, you can do education with it, give 
support etc. There are a lot of possibilities to earn money with 
Blender. Great!
And that’s also why I happily spend time on the code.
But not! for other software companies who make money with that. That’s 
another case for me.

I want to have a tool which is free and people can use but I don't want 
to give companies code to build another commercial tool with that and 
make money with that new program.

Thomas


Am 25.11.2010 00:09, schrieb Martin Poirier:
> 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.
>
> -----
>
> Alex, please drop it. You're not helping your position with false dichotomies and misrepresentations.
>
> Martin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>