[Bf-committers] extension clause

Roger Wickes rogerwickes at yahoo.com
Wed Oct 6 04:43:41 CEST 2010

What is not OK about it?
I think it is clear that the Blender Foundation cannot support proprietary code.

If you have the situation where a company wants to build
some DLL and keep it proprietary, then never release it to the public. Guard it 
your own intellectual property. Use your code to your competitive advantage. 
I have a client who did just that. Their scripts that they wrote and paid for 
are theirs.
They license their code and have a great business model. Their complete solution
includes Blender, but they do not sub-license Blender or steal code; instead the
customer gets Blender from BF, and their solution from them.

Or do you have the situation where you want to develop a plugin to Blender that 
license out (sell) to customers?


Check out my website at www.rogerwickes.com for a good deal on my book and 
training course, as well as information about my latest activities. Use coupon
Papasmurf for $15 off!

----- Original Message ----
From: john grant <johnkonradgrant at yahoo.com>
To: bf-committers at blender.org
Sent: Tue, October 5, 2010 10:09:50 PM
Subject: [Bf-committers] extension clause

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,

Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers at blender.org


More information about the Bf-committers mailing list