[Bf-committers] extension clause
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
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