7 ms·

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

by 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.
lozenge 7y ago
I don't think using an API of a GPL software means your software "has to be" GPL. For example, not all software running on Linux using Linux APIs (syscalls) is GPL.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  It's an area of open legal debate, with a spectrum of what it means to be using an API and what constitutes a derived work.
  - lozenge 7y ago
    From what I can see, Blender is trying to pretend it's a hard-and-fast rule, and they are requiring addon authors to label their work as open source to sell on their store.
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      > From what I can see, Blender is trying to pretend it's a hard-and-fast rule Well yeah it's a debate - I guess this is their side of the debate. Arguing for something isn't 'pretending'.
- donatj 7y ago
  I think if it did mean that, Linux would be abandoned by most major companies overnight, as you could not develop non-GPL binaries for it; I do however believe Blender is in the wrong here.
- danny93 7y ago
  >I don't think using an API of a GPL software means your software "has to be" GPL. We should GPL the software that is calling the Api of the GPL software. >not all software running on Linux using Linux APIs (syscalls) is GPL This is because linus Torvold(Other contributors) has given the syscall exception along with GPL-2.0. That's why there exists all kind of proprietary software running on top linux os. Note: I am an open source officer I deal on this topic very often
- 7y ago
jlgaddis 7y ago
Sounds similar to the argument about WordPress, third-party plugins, and the GPL from a while back.
dahart 7y ago
> Some of the add-one on this site are commercial plugins available for sale by their authors. All Blender plugins have to be GPL Just a side-note about the distinctions between open-source, free software, and commercial software. The US government considers any software that has a license and is available to the public “commercial”. So all GNU software in their view is commercial. It’s not a legal distinction of whether money is charged, it’s whether the software has a license and is public. U.S. law governing federal procurement (U.S. Code Title 41, Chapter 7, Section 403) defines "commercial item" as including "Any item, other than real property, that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmental purposes (i.e., it has some non-government use), and (i) Has been sold, leased, or licensed to the general public; or (ii) Has been offered for sale, lease, or license to the general public ...". https://dodcio.defense.gov/open-source-software-faq/#Q:_Is_open_source_software_commercial_software.3F_Is_it_COTS.3F https://dodcio.defense.gov/open-source-software-faq/#Q:_Is_o...
- em-bee 7y ago
  i noticed the same problem with the use of the term proprietary because that simply means non-standard. there is plenty of non-standard Free Software. and there is also plenty of commercially sold Free Software (RHEL for example) the only term that i am aware of that really works is non-free.
- notatoad 7y ago
  "commercial software" has a well-used and generally accepted definition, regardless of how the DOD procurement rules define the term.
  - em-bee 7y ago
    as more and more companies sell FOSS licensed software, that definition is going to change. commercial software as the opposite of Free Software worked as long as the majority of Free Software products were generally free as in beverage in addition to having a free license. "Commercial Open Source" is a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_open_source_applications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_open_source_applica...
e12e 7y ago
> 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 Only if the people between blender depot has a copy distributed under the gpl? Granted, the most likely way they'd get a copy would be under the gpl (get a copy from someone that purchased the plug-in). But it does not immediately follow that its trivial to legally redistribute the latest copy of a gpl plug-in, unless you purchase new versions as they are released.
tgsovlerkhgsel 7y ago
Thank you for providing this context. > All Blender plugins have to be GPL Didn't the blog article just point out an obvious loophole of turning the addon into a bridge to an external non-GPL module, and putting some critical functionality into the non-GPL part? Of course, developing such addons will be harder, but even moving just some pointless, trivial, easily rewritten code to the non-GPL part would force people who want to redistribute it to rewrite that part. Or even completely subverting the spirit (but probably not the law) of the GPL by building a small non-GPL "DRM server" that is called and checked from the GPL'd module, and having the open source part refuse to work if this server isn't present? Of course, anyone would be invited to take the GPL'ed code and remove the checks, but it would shift the cost from "redistribute the version for free" to creating and maintaining a fork, which might be enough to get people to pay instead.

by opencl 7y ago

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.

lozenge 7y ago

I don't think using an API of a GPL software means your software "has to be" GPL. For example, not all software running on Linux using Linux APIs (syscalls) is GPL.

chrisseaton 7y ago
It's an area of open legal debate, with a spectrum of what it means to be using an API and what constitutes a derived work.
- lozenge 7y ago
  From what I can see, Blender is trying to pretend it's a hard-and-fast rule, and they are requiring addon authors to label their work as open source to sell on their store.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    > From what I can see, Blender is trying to pretend it's a hard-and-fast rule Well yeah it's a debate - I guess this is their side of the debate. Arguing for something isn't 'pretending'.
donatj 7y ago
I think if it did mean that, Linux would be abandoned by most major companies overnight, as you could not develop non-GPL binaries for it; I do however believe Blender is in the wrong here.
danny93 7y ago
>I don't think using an API of a GPL software means your software "has to be" GPL. We should GPL the software that is calling the Api of the GPL software. >not all software running on Linux using Linux APIs (syscalls) is GPL This is because linus Torvold(Other contributors) has given the syscall exception along with GPL-2.0. That's why there exists all kind of proprietary software running on top linux os. Note: I am an open source officer I deal on this topic very often
7y ago

jlgaddis 7y ago

Sounds similar to the argument about WordPress, third-party plugins, and the GPL from a while back.

dahart 7y ago

> Some of the add-one on this site are commercial plugins available for sale by their authors. All Blender plugins have to be GPL Just a side-note about the distinctions between open-source, free software, and commercial software. The US government considers any software that has a license and is available to the public “commercial”. So all GNU software in their view is commercial. It’s not a legal distinction of whether money is charged, it’s whether the software has a license and is public. U.S. law governing federal procurement (U.S. Code Title 41, Chapter 7, Section 403) defines "commercial item" as including "Any item, other than real property, that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmental purposes (i.e., it has some non-government use), and (i) Has been sold, leased, or licensed to the general public; or (ii) Has been offered for sale, lease, or license to the general public ...". https://dodcio.defense.gov/open-source-software-faq/#Q:_Is_open_source_software_commercial_software.3F_Is_it_COTS.3F https://dodcio.defense.gov/open-source-software-faq/#Q:_Is_o...

em-bee 7y ago
i noticed the same problem with the use of the term proprietary because that simply means non-standard. there is plenty of non-standard Free Software. and there is also plenty of commercially sold Free Software (RHEL for example) the only term that i am aware of that really works is non-free.
notatoad 7y ago
"commercial software" has a well-used and generally accepted definition, regardless of how the DOD procurement rules define the term.
- em-bee 7y ago
  as more and more companies sell FOSS licensed software, that definition is going to change. commercial software as the opposite of Free Software worked as long as the majority of Free Software products were generally free as in beverage in addition to having a free license. "Commercial Open Source" is a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_open_source_applications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_open_source_applica...

e12e 7y ago

> 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 Only if the people between blender depot has a copy distributed under the gpl? Granted, the most likely way they'd get a copy would be under the gpl (get a copy from someone that purchased the plug-in). But it does not immediately follow that its trivial to legally redistribute the latest copy of a gpl plug-in, unless you purchase new versions as they are released.

tgsovlerkhgsel 7y ago

Thank you for providing this context. > All Blender plugins have to be GPL Didn't the blog article just point out an obvious loophole of turning the addon into a bridge to an external non-GPL module, and putting some critical functionality into the non-GPL part? Of course, developing such addons will be harder, but even moving just some pointless, trivial, easily rewritten code to the non-GPL part would force people who want to redistribute it to rewrite that part. Or even completely subverting the spirit (but probably not the law) of the GPL by building a small non-GPL "DRM server" that is called and checked from the GPL'd module, and having the open source part refuse to work if this server isn't present? Of course, anyone would be invited to take the GPL'ed code and remove the checks, but it would shift the cost from "redistribute the version for free" to creating and maintaining a fork, which might be enough to get people to pay instead.