11 ms·

I will say I’m constantly bewildered by which license to choose. I’m using copyleft to defend myself a bit. But weak copyleft because I’ve hate that the gpl pre

I will say I’m constantly bewildered by which license to choose. I’m using copyleft to defend myself a bit. But weak copyleft because I’ve hate that the gpl prevents blender plug-ins from being closed source or linking against something closed source. Plasticity will allow plug-ins to do whatever they want, that’s the goal. There is some possibility I will switch to MIT since philosophically I’m more in that camp

jcelerier 5y ago
> I’m using copyleft to defend myself a bit. But weak copyleft because I’ve hate that the gpl prevents blender plug-ins from being closed source or linking against something closed source So you're ok with using copyleft to defend yourself, but not ok with others to use copyleft to defend themselves ? This is bewildering
- nkallen 5y ago
  Yes that is correct. I am not ok with others. Edit: Jesus do you really not recognize sarcasm? People are free to use whatever license they want and I’m free to explain why I choose lgpl over gpl
  - jcelerier 5y ago
    surely you see how your position is not workable in any decent society ? this is literally one of the only common rule across humankind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
  - jcelerier 5y ago
    > People are free to use whatever license they want and I’m free to explain why I choose lgpl over gpl choosing a license is a political act whether you want it or not - you are free to choose whichever license you want, that does not mean you won't get called out (like for any other choice with political relevancy even tenuous - eating meat, driving a car, etc. to speak about things I am guilty of for instance)
    - slightknack 5y ago
      We shouldn't have to live in a culture when being called out for making a 'choice with tenuous political relevancy' is socially expected, and something someone is 'guilty of'.
- esteth 5y ago
  Their stance seems reasonable to me. They seem happy for works to be GPL, but frustrated that it means plugins or extensions or things which are not the core work themselves are then hampered.
  - fxtentacle 5y ago
    I agree with that. It's basically impossible to build a legal OBS AI plugin. You need libObs which is GPL but also DirectML which is closed source.
  - nkallen 5y ago
    That’s exactly my take. What exactly constitutes a “derived work” in the gpl (plug-ins do!) is counter intuitive to me. Even the lgpl definition of “dynamic linking” is something that scares me in the context of npm modules, which is why I’m nervous I made the wrong choice with lgpl
    - jcelerier 5y ago
      > That’s exactly my take. What exactly constitutes a “derived work” in the gpl (plug-ins do!) Of course they do. The goal of GPL is to reduce the amount of proprietary software in the world. Proprietary plug-ins would go directly against this.
      - hoseja 5y ago
        The result of GPL is reducing the amount of GPL in the world.
        EricE 5y ago
        Exactly. I love the irony of "forced openness" :p
      - ajford 5y ago
        But why would a GPL app need to force GPL on a plugin? That seems to me like a perfectly reasonable boundary between the two applications. If I wanted to leverage OBS for example and introduce my own plugin that made use of a closed-source library or tool I had the license for, I should be able to create it. My third-party plugin doesn't impede the distribution and usage of OBS in any way, only provides a separate feature that might require a different license.
- Etheryte 5y ago
  As a very tangential side note, behavior like this is fairy common, and a good reminder human being are not rational actors. People drive like asshats when they're in a hurry, but are very upset when someone else drives that way. Rather than bewildering, I would call it human nature. What is rare though, is being very honest about it.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- fsloth 5y ago
  That is a take that I do not understand. How is not allowing closed source plug-ins in Blender defending anyone? It simply means a percentage of those developers who would have been happy to create third party tools simply now don't. See for example the thriving plug-in ecosystem SketchUp has. A third party should be able to create plug-ins without risking their IP - closed source, and any license they like. This model has been the cornerstone of CAD innovation for the past decades. True freedom means that you let dowstream users do as they please, not that you lock them in in specific delivery module.
  - nkallen 5y ago
    I think it's fine for people to have varying philosophical takes on what should be the normative goals of open source software licenses. Obviously the FSF takes a rather maximalist stance. I personally find this aggressive goal and some of the personalities behind it to not match my vibe. And the reality is that more permissive licenses like MIT are becoming more and more popular. What I've seen some Blender plugins do to get around this is to have an open-source plugin communicate via IPC to a closed source library. It's totally legal. It's a performance and implementation tax that just seems silly to me.
    - jcelerier 5y ago
      > It's totally legal. If the IPC is here only for the sake of circumventing the GPL (e.g. there aren't any meaningful use of the "GPL plug-in" part through this IPC channel outside of communication with the non-GPL program), it's totally not. What are such plug-ins ?
      - fsloth 5y ago
        IPC is totally worthwhile for native applications in any case, when separate complex components are combined into a single user session. Running the code in separate heaps reduces the chances of bugs in one application code corrupting the entire application heap. Very hard to argue that IPC would ever be just for avoiding license. It always increases total robustness.
ushakov 5y ago
[edit: misunderstanding]
- nkallen 5y ago
  Please correct me if I’m wrong but I was not under that impression https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5419923/can-gpl-be-re-licensed https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5419923/can-gpl-be-re-li... I thought I am the copyright owner and I can offer my code under as many licenses as I want. Many people dual license gpl code is my understanding. Converting my own code to mit should be allowed right? Every Google result I’ve found says I’m the copyright owner and I can offer as many licenses as I want. Are you just trolling?
  - mintplant 5y ago
    Correct, the commenter you're replying to appears to be completely misinformed.
- ginko 5y ago
  >GPL means the code belongs to the public and you cannot copyright it That's incorrect. The author still retains the copyright and is free to relicense their work any way they want.
throwra620 5y ago

jcelerier 5y ago

> I’m using copyleft to defend myself a bit. But weak copyleft because I’ve hate that the gpl prevents blender plug-ins from being closed source or linking against something closed source So you're ok with using copyleft to defend yourself, but not ok with others to use copyleft to defend themselves ? This is bewildering

nkallen 5y ago
Yes that is correct. I am not ok with others. Edit: Jesus do you really not recognize sarcasm? People are free to use whatever license they want and I’m free to explain why I choose lgpl over gpl
- jcelerier 5y ago
  surely you see how your position is not workable in any decent society ? this is literally one of the only common rule across humankind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
- jcelerier 5y ago
  > People are free to use whatever license they want and I’m free to explain why I choose lgpl over gpl choosing a license is a political act whether you want it or not - you are free to choose whichever license you want, that does not mean you won't get called out (like for any other choice with political relevancy even tenuous - eating meat, driving a car, etc. to speak about things I am guilty of for instance)
  - slightknack 5y ago
    We shouldn't have to live in a culture when being called out for making a 'choice with tenuous political relevancy' is socially expected, and something someone is 'guilty of'.
esteth 5y ago
Their stance seems reasonable to me. They seem happy for works to be GPL, but frustrated that it means plugins or extensions or things which are not the core work themselves are then hampered.
- fxtentacle 5y ago
  I agree with that. It's basically impossible to build a legal OBS AI plugin. You need libObs which is GPL but also DirectML which is closed source.
- nkallen 5y ago
  That’s exactly my take. What exactly constitutes a “derived work” in the gpl (plug-ins do!) is counter intuitive to me. Even the lgpl definition of “dynamic linking” is something that scares me in the context of npm modules, which is why I’m nervous I made the wrong choice with lgpl
  - jcelerier 5y ago
    > That’s exactly my take. What exactly constitutes a “derived work” in the gpl (plug-ins do!) Of course they do. The goal of GPL is to reduce the amount of proprietary software in the world. Proprietary plug-ins would go directly against this.
    - hoseja 5y ago
      The result of GPL is reducing the amount of GPL in the world.
      - EricE 5y ago
        Exactly. I love the irony of "forced openness" :p
    - ajford 5y ago
      But why would a GPL app need to force GPL on a plugin? That seems to me like a perfectly reasonable boundary between the two applications. If I wanted to leverage OBS for example and introduce my own plugin that made use of a closed-source library or tool I had the license for, I should be able to create it. My third-party plugin doesn't impede the distribution and usage of OBS in any way, only provides a separate feature that might require a different license.
Etheryte 5y ago
As a very tangential side note, behavior like this is fairy common, and a good reminder human being are not rational actors. People drive like asshats when they're in a hurry, but are very upset when someone else drives that way. Rather than bewildering, I would call it human nature. What is rare though, is being very honest about it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
fsloth 5y ago
That is a take that I do not understand. How is not allowing closed source plug-ins in Blender defending anyone? It simply means a percentage of those developers who would have been happy to create third party tools simply now don't. See for example the thriving plug-in ecosystem SketchUp has. A third party should be able to create plug-ins without risking their IP - closed source, and any license they like. This model has been the cornerstone of CAD innovation for the past decades. True freedom means that you let dowstream users do as they please, not that you lock them in in specific delivery module.
- nkallen 5y ago
  I think it's fine for people to have varying philosophical takes on what should be the normative goals of open source software licenses. Obviously the FSF takes a rather maximalist stance. I personally find this aggressive goal and some of the personalities behind it to not match my vibe. And the reality is that more permissive licenses like MIT are becoming more and more popular. What I've seen some Blender plugins do to get around this is to have an open-source plugin communicate via IPC to a closed source library. It's totally legal. It's a performance and implementation tax that just seems silly to me.
  - jcelerier 5y ago
    > It's totally legal. If the IPC is here only for the sake of circumventing the GPL (e.g. there aren't any meaningful use of the "GPL plug-in" part through this IPC channel outside of communication with the non-GPL program), it's totally not. What are such plug-ins ?
    - fsloth 5y ago
      IPC is totally worthwhile for native applications in any case, when separate complex components are combined into a single user session. Running the code in separate heaps reduces the chances of bugs in one application code corrupting the entire application heap. Very hard to argue that IPC would ever be just for avoiding license. It always increases total robustness.

ushakov 5y ago

[edit: misunderstanding]

nkallen 5y ago
Please correct me if I’m wrong but I was not under that impression https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5419923/can-gpl-be-re-licensed https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5419923/can-gpl-be-re-li... I thought I am the copyright owner and I can offer my code under as many licenses as I want. Many people dual license gpl code is my understanding. Converting my own code to mit should be allowed right? Every Google result I’ve found says I’m the copyright owner and I can offer as many licenses as I want. Are you just trolling?
- mintplant 5y ago
  Correct, the commenter you're replying to appears to be completely misinformed.
ginko 5y ago
>GPL means the code belongs to the public and you cannot copyright it That's incorrect. The author still retains the copyright and is free to relicense their work any way they want.

throwra620 5y ago