>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

>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...