[Bf-committers] extension clause

[Leo Sutic]

This is one of those questions that end up being decided by case law.

The issue is what is an "aggregate" and what is a "modified version". See:

    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation

It is tricky to define where the line between these is drawn, as much of
it depends on the nature of the connection between the Blender-part and
the "external" part. If public APIs are used on both sides, then it
comes closer to "aggregation". If private APIs are used, closer to
"modified version".

I had this same discussion with the authors of JBoss, an EJB Server, a
while back. There, too, one could write plugins for the server. The end
result was that as long as the plugin only used public APIs (Java
standards), you could do anything you wanted.

/LS

On 2010-10-06 06:56, Dan Eicher wrote:
> As long as myDLL didn't link to or rely on any gpl'd code there's nothing
> anyone can say about how people use it -- except for the copyright owner of
> course.
> 
> Bundling (distributing it and blender in the same 'package') is probably not
> an option though.
>
> The bottom line is that we consider everything you can create in Blender as
>> 'data', including Blender scripts. But when you extend Blender with "other
>> facilities" you have to follow the regulations of the GPL.
>>
>> ...snip...
>>
>> The divider is "If the script runs in the Blender Interpretor". When the
>> script calls code not running in the Blender Interpretor you are making
>> bindings to other facilities, and the regular GNU GPL rules apply.
>>
> Hmm... so one can only make calls to gpl compatible code if they want to
> distribute a script that runs in blender's interpreter?
> 
> That doesn't sound right.
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>