[Bf-committers] extension clause
johnkonradgrant at yahoo.com
Wed Oct 6 04:09:50 CEST 2010
I assume this topic has been brought up before, but I have not yet found
evidence of those conversations. I would like to voice my opinion to find out
what is the truth. If I am not understanding correctly, please let me know. I
presume that the following text,
"Not OK is:
Author publishes a Blender script, calling a compiled C library with own code,
both under own license. "
from this source,
means that a DLL I wrote, let's call it "myDLL", would need a license compatible
with the GPL if I made a python script that allowed me to use myDLL from
Blender. I believe Blender would be well served if there was a exemption that
did not require that extensions through python or C libraries become GPL or more
restrictive. If these extensions were allowed to have any license model
appropriate, I believe Blender would see more acceptance. Companies are
currently avoiding Blender based on this understanding. I know, I work at one.
I would really like to see Blender used more, at my company and at companies we
I hope the issue is clear. Please let me know if I understand the license
statement correctly and if the Blender Foundation would consider an exception
clause for extending Blender.
More information about the Bf-committers