[Bf-committers] extension clause

Elia Sarti vekoon at gmail.com
Wed Oct 6 18:25:58 CEST 2010


Related to this, wouldn't it suffice to release the RNA and bpy modules 
under a less restrictive license (BSD) to potentially solve this issue?
I think we can reasonably track down all contributors to these modules, 
as they're fairly recent and all of the APIs scripts use are bridged by 
these two modules so it should screen out any possible licensing conflicts?
The same would be true for C extensions, by using RNA exclusively to 
access the Blender API.

Or does the fact that RNA itself uses GPL'd code influence this possibility?


Campbell Barton wrote, on 10/06/2010 05:07 PM:
> Probably our FAQ should list possible ways to write closed source code
> with blender, rather then only saying whats not possible.
>
> AFAIK there are a few ways...
> 1) run your closed source code in a separate process and have your own
> opensouce module communicate with it (pipes, sockets, shared-mem).
> 2) do what nvidia do on linux. mix closed and open code but distribute
> separately. this means the violation only happens on the system where
> both are installed and running.
> 3) do whatever the heck you like but only use internally or share with
> clients but dont sell or distribute pubically.
>
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:36 PM, john grant<johnkonradgrant at yahoo.com>  wrote:
>    
>> Hi all,
>> Thanks for contributing to the discussion.  It isn't clear to me what the final
>> decision is.
>>
>> I think many of you (Dan, Damir, others) see the issue with the wording and
>> understand what I'm trying to do (definitely nothing malicious toward Blender)
>> which is to extend Blender to do new things via a script or plugin.  Blender has
>> created facilities for extension, but the language used by the Foundation makes
>> it DEBATABLE that the extension may need to have a license compatible with the
>> GPL.  The situation (probably common, like the VRay example) is that a script or
>> plugin can be written to use the Blender API from within Blender AND call a DLL
>> with a different license.  I can think of several examples that the community is
>> probably already using or would like to use that may be violating the language
>> used by the Blender Foundation.  Again, I think Blender will be well served by
>> allowing for such extensions.
>>
>> Will the Blender Foundation provide language that removes any doubt that
>> proprietary DLLs can be used from at least one form of extension mechanism?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Roger Wickes<rogerwickes at yahoo.com>
>> To: bf-blender developers<bf-committers at blender.org>
>> Sent: Wed, October 6, 2010 6:20:38 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Bf-committers] extension clause
>>
>> Think about it this way. A program that runs under Linux uses OS API's. Even
>> though Linux is GPL,
>>
>> the program does not have to be GPL. Blender is a facility. If you use
>> publicly-available APIs to
>>
>> write an extension to Blender, or even a whole suite of programs like an
>> AutoCAD-type, you can
>> license your Intellectual Property any way you want to.
>>
>> What you cannot do is to take some existing Blender module, extend it with your
>> own code,
>> and then license that module back out.
>>
>> --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: Leo Sutic<leo.sutic at gmail.com>
>> To: bf-blender developers<bf-committers at blender.org>
>> Sent: Wed, October 6, 2010 3:23:50 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Bf-committers] extension clause
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>        
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>
>>      
>
>
>    


More information about the Bf-committers mailing list