[Bf-committers] extension clause

[Roger Wickes]

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 
as
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 
you
license out (sell) to customers?

 --Roger


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

Hello,
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,
http://www.blender.org/education-help/faq/gpl-for-artists/

      
_______________________________________________
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers at blender.org
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers