[Bf-committers] Add-ons: Add a license to bl_info

Campbell Barton ideasman42 at gmail.com
Mon Jun 11 08:41:31 CEST 2018

Hi Aaron, I'd rather not.

- Blender it's self has different licenses for different components,
  as long as it's GPL compatible users should not have to worry.
  I rather we keep this policy for add-ons too.

- the source code should have a license in the source code header.

- the addons need to be GPL compatible so many will be redundant.

- on the flip side, if there are complications with the license
  (addons which include data files for example),
  it's more likely to become a license paragraph.

How about this policy:

  If add-ons include data-files or assets which aren't CC-0 (public
domain), this must be stated in the add-on's description.

I rather make the default being not to add noise into the interface
and encourage add-on authors not to complicate matters for our users.

Since the add-ons must be GPL compatible I don't think we need to
include this in the metadata, developers can include this in the
description if they really want.

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Aaron Carlisle <carlisle.b3d at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> Since add-ons have been widespread coming from hundreds
> of authors and different location, it would be nice to communicate
> how they are licensed. I think for 2.8 we should add a license to the
> bl_info.
> What do other people think?
> --
> Aaron Carlisle
> Project administrator for the Blender 3D Documentation Project
> Email: carlisle.b3d at gmail.com
> Website: https://blendify.github.io
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

- Campbell

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list