5 ms·

Can someone provide some context for this post? Are there calls to change Blender's license? Are add-on developers violating GPL? The post mentions that a bri

by Jonnax 7y ago

Can someone provide some context for this post? Are there calls to change Blender's license? Are add-on developers violating GPL? The post mentions that a bridge between open source and proprietary needs to be open source but the add-on itself doesn't? Is it just a "how dare you sell products closed source products on top of blender?" The business model of providing support is all well and good but it's just one. If the software is super easy to use then why would you pay?

tetrep 7y ago
I don't have any additional context, but the overall style of the post makes it sound to me like it could be talking about a change in the add-on API license or something (in addition to a general pro GPL post). This is the strongest evidence I have: > I expect that all add-on developers recognize and respect this concept.
klez 7y ago
I think this is for the recent surge of quasi-open-source license changes some products have gone through. That's why they underline the difference between free software and open source. Recently people started saying that the OSI's Open Source Definition is restrictive and obsolete, that having the sources available is enough, that it's not a problem to restrict usage, etc... That's why it's important to stress "free as in freedom" in free software and not "open as in you can see the source" in open source.
- lone_haxx0r 7y ago
  In a world without intellectual property, source available would equal free software. I think the FSF has tried to squash too many semantic, technical and legal subtleties into the GPL, the words free, libre, etc.
  - anchpop 7y ago
    No it wouldn't, for software to be "Free software" it must be GPL-or-other-copyleft-license licensed, which aside from being trivially impossible in a world without intellectual property laws, also has different outcomes than placing the source in the public domain. For example nothing prevents me from taking some public domain code and including it in my closed-source application, but the GPL forbids this.
    - pessimizer 7y ago
      In a world without intellectual property, your closed-source application would be a trade secret that would quickly get out.
    - klez 7y ago
      No, for free software to be "Free Software" it must respect the Four Freedoms (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html). GPL-or-other-copyleft-license happens to respect them, but so do the Apache, BSDs, MIT and other licenses which are not copyleft. Note: "Copyleft" as opposed to simply Free Software entails reciprocity, e.g., the "viral" part of the GPL. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
opencl 7y ago
Somebody recently launched a new site "Blender Depot" which hosts a bunch of Blender add-ons and provides a batch install feature. Some of the add-ons on this site are commercial plugins available for sale by their authors. All Blender plugins have to be GPL so this sort of redistribution is legal but some of these authors have been rather upset about it. So a large argument ensued on the Blender forums about the GPL, the ethics of software redistribution even when copyright law says it is okay, etc.
- lruor 7y ago
  So the classic case of "I chose GPL because everybody chooses GPL because it's the most used licence but I forgot to read what it actually says and I'm upset"
  - watwut 7y ago
    I suspect not so much I forgot to read then "I hope nobody is gonna use parts of license I don't like, oh shit" e.g. wanting it both ways.
  - jcims 7y ago
    Well, to be fair, I've been there myself. It's an eye opening experience to put it mildly.
- jsty 7y ago
  I think the referenced forum discussions are [0][1] for anyone else trying to find them? [0] https://blenderartists.org/t/introducing-blender-depot-browse-and-batch-install-blender-add-ons/1162742 https://blenderartists.org/t/introducing-blender-depot-brows... [1] https://blenderartists.org/t/yet-another-discussion-about-the-gpl-this-time-about-add-ons-again/1163319 https://blenderartists.org/t/yet-another-discussion-about-th...
  - iamcreasy 7y ago
    Thank you for providing the context.
- 7y ago
chrisseaton 7y ago
If you post a long statement like this article and the first response from people is "I don't know what they're talking about or referencing" then you know you've written it very badly.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- pessimizer 7y ago
  Or for people who are familiar with your product and industry, and not a general audience.
delhanty 7y ago
>The post mentions that a bridge between open source and proprietary needs to be open source but the add-on itself doesn't? The post isn't very clear, but they way I interpret it is that the Blender add-ons do have to comply with the GPL. Furthermore, I don't think that's new. Look at the answer in January 2017 to this question [0] on Blender Stackexchange by Jaroslav Jerryno Novotny: >Blender also includes the Blender Python API, so every piece of code of the addon that uses some Blender Python API must be also licensed under GNU. This only applies to the addon script files or binaries. Later on, it's clear that compatibility with closed source programs is restricted to sharing files - that is linking is not allowed: >But you can do something like commercial render engines do: the export plugin is GNU (uses Blender API) and converts scene data to commercial application (ie. renderer) which is not GNU (doesn't use Blender API) and the licenses differ. This works because the addon is not dependent on the non-GNU application. [0] https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/72095/license-issues-with-blender-addons https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/72095/license-is...

by Jonnax 7y ago

tetrep 7y ago

I don't have any additional context, but the overall style of the post makes it sound to me like it could be talking about a change in the add-on API license or something (in addition to a general pro GPL post). This is the strongest evidence I have: > I expect that all add-on developers recognize and respect this concept.

klez 7y ago

I think this is for the recent surge of quasi-open-source license changes some products have gone through. That's why they underline the difference between free software and open source. Recently people started saying that the OSI's Open Source Definition is restrictive and obsolete, that having the sources available is enough, that it's not a problem to restrict usage, etc... That's why it's important to stress "free as in freedom" in free software and not "open as in you can see the source" in open source.

lone_haxx0r 7y ago
In a world without intellectual property, source available would equal free software. I think the FSF has tried to squash too many semantic, technical and legal subtleties into the GPL, the words free, libre, etc.
- anchpop 7y ago
  No it wouldn't, for software to be "Free software" it must be GPL-or-other-copyleft-license licensed, which aside from being trivially impossible in a world without intellectual property laws, also has different outcomes than placing the source in the public domain. For example nothing prevents me from taking some public domain code and including it in my closed-source application, but the GPL forbids this.
  - pessimizer 7y ago
    In a world without intellectual property, your closed-source application would be a trade secret that would quickly get out.
  - klez 7y ago
    No, for free software to be "Free Software" it must respect the Four Freedoms (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html). GPL-or-other-copyleft-license happens to respect them, but so do the Apache, BSDs, MIT and other licenses which are not copyleft. Note: "Copyleft" as opposed to simply Free Software entails reciprocity, e.g., the "viral" part of the GPL. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

opencl 7y ago

Somebody recently launched a new site "Blender Depot" which hosts a bunch of Blender add-ons and provides a batch install feature. Some of the add-ons on this site are commercial plugins available for sale by their authors. All Blender plugins have to be GPL so this sort of redistribution is legal but some of these authors have been rather upset about it. So a large argument ensued on the Blender forums about the GPL, the ethics of software redistribution even when copyright law says it is okay, etc.

lruor 7y ago
So the classic case of "I chose GPL because everybody chooses GPL because it's the most used licence but I forgot to read what it actually says and I'm upset"
- watwut 7y ago
  I suspect not so much I forgot to read then "I hope nobody is gonna use parts of license I don't like, oh shit" e.g. wanting it both ways.
- jcims 7y ago
  Well, to be fair, I've been there myself. It's an eye opening experience to put it mildly.
jsty 7y ago
I think the referenced forum discussions are [0][1] for anyone else trying to find them? [0] https://blenderartists.org/t/introducing-blender-depot-browse-and-batch-install-blender-add-ons/1162742 https://blenderartists.org/t/introducing-blender-depot-brows... [1] https://blenderartists.org/t/yet-another-discussion-about-the-gpl-this-time-about-add-ons-again/1163319 https://blenderartists.org/t/yet-another-discussion-about-th...
- iamcreasy 7y ago
  Thank you for providing the context.
7y ago

chrisseaton 7y ago

If you post a long statement like this article and the first response from people is "I don't know what they're talking about or referencing" then you know you've written it very badly.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pessimizer 7y ago
Or for people who are familiar with your product and industry, and not a general audience.

delhanty 7y ago

>The post mentions that a bridge between open source and proprietary needs to be open source but the add-on itself doesn't? The post isn't very clear, but they way I interpret it is that the Blender add-ons do have to comply with the GPL. Furthermore, I don't think that's new. Look at the answer in January 2017 to this question [0] on Blender Stackexchange by Jaroslav Jerryno Novotny: >Blender also includes the Blender Python API, so every piece of code of the addon that uses some Blender Python API must be also licensed under GNU. This only applies to the addon script files or binaries. Later on, it's clear that compatibility with closed source programs is restricted to sharing files - that is linking is not allowed: >But you can do something like commercial render engines do: the export plugin is GNU (uses Blender API) and converts scene data to commercial application (ie. renderer) which is not GNU (doesn't use Blender API) and the licenses differ. This works because the addon is not dependent on the non-GNU application. [0] https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/72095/license-issues-with-blender-addons https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/72095/license-is...