[Bf-committers] extension clause

john grant 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 
interact with.

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 mailing list