5 ms·

That licensing section doesn't make sense to me. Blender is GPL, so add-ons must be GPL too: https://www.blender.org/about/license/ https://www.blender.org/abo

by mkl 4y ago

That licensing section doesn't make sense to me. Blender is GPL, so add-ons must be GPL too: https://www.blender.org/about/license/ https://www.blender.org/about/license/

indrora 4y ago
Gnu Emacs is GPL. Many Emacs plugins are not.
wyldfire 4y ago
It's likely the case that the author doesn't understand that they can't encumber their users under the terms of the license granted to them. > Sharing or selling Blender add-ons (Python scripts) > Blender’s Python API is an integral part of the software, used to define the user interface or develop tools for example. The GNU GPL license therefore requires that such scripts (if published) are being shared under a GPL compatible license. You are free to sell such scripts, but the sales then is restricted to the download service itself. Your customers will receive the script under the same license (GPL), with the same free conditions as everyone has for Blender.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  Merely using an API doesn't infect GPL software (for example, syscalls on an OS). The actual legal argument from the FSF on this point is more convoluted, and hinges on the plug-in being a derivative work in the legal sense. Whether this is true or not isn't settled. It seems to me that the legal community leans in the direction that using an API doesn't make a work derivative in and of itself, and that transforming the actual work and redistributing the transformation (or the work itself) is required. It is however clearly a gray area.
  - oh_sigh 4y ago
    Yeah...if that is the case, wouldn't nvidia graphic driver's kernel-shim-to-closed-source-binary not be legit, since the shim defines an API in the kernel and then the closed source blob uses that GPL'd API?
    - sudosysgen 4y ago
      Precisely. Though perhaps NVidia would argue they're giving themselves a license exemption? If you understand drivers as plugins (which makes sense, really, drivers are kernel plugins), and if you understand plugins as derivative, it would be even worse. It would mean every driver on Windows's copyright is Microsoft's by default. And that the original NVidia closed source is already GPL.
      - my123 4y ago
        Not just NVIDIA, ZFS too. From the GPL perspective, any non GPL compatible license is considered the same way. That said, that part of the GPL on library linking was never attempted to be enforced in court. For additional entertainment: redistributing a linked GPL program to a non-GPL compatible non-OS bundled (those have an exception) library is supposed to be forbidden too, but is very often done. For example, for the Visual C++ runtimes. It’s supposed to not be okay according to the FSF, which does quite some overreach in their FAQs. A reminder that the FAQs themselves are _not_ part of the license.
        pabs3 4y ago
        There is a way that Oracle could solve the ZFS situation; release a CDDLv2 that is compatible with the GPL, then the CDDLv1 auto-upgrade clause would mean that all CDDLv1 software that hasn't opted out of the upgrade clause would now be GPL compatible. Some parts of OpenZFS would need to be relicensed or reimplemented, but that job would be much smaller than reimplementing ZFS for GPL compatibility. More discussion here: https://lwn.net/Articles/894901/ https://lwn.net/Articles/894901/
      - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
        Drivers aren't plugins. They link to and incorporate GPL code. You can't grant special terms in that scenario. The best they can do is dual license their headers. The hazy area is where no linking happens and it's just a pure API without code sharing.
        4y ago
  - wyldfire 4y ago
    Yes, I agree. However using an API that may-or-may-not be bound by the GPL is different (de facto) from using an API that the licensor claims is covered by the GPL. It's quite a bit more risky IMO. > using an API doesn't make a work derivative in and of itself Note that while it might be a gray area, there is some (recent) precedent [1]. Although a SCOTUS ruling isn't quite as binding as it used to be... :( [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_....
    - sudosysgen 4y ago
      IIRC that case isn't that the using an API makes it a derivative work, but that the API itself is copyrighted and that making an implementation of that API is a copyright violation (except for fair use, etc...). EDIT: gpm is correct, they didn't arrive to such a conclusion.
      - gpm 4y ago
        > the API itself is copyrighted They didn't decide either way on that question. To quote wikipedia "This conclusion rendered the need to evaluate the copyright of the API unnecessary".
- mnd999 4y ago
  Maybe the do understand but they’re trying it anyway. Most people will just follow what it says. NFT bros are not the sharpest tools in the box.
sudosysgen 4y ago
It is not settled that add-ons have to be GPL. The add-ons are python programs that do not contain or link against Blender code. Instead, they are called by Blender itself (and can call Blender python APIs). It's not much different from a Linux userspace program, for example. There are reasonable arguments either way. For example, is an add-on for an electronics device that directly interfaces with the motherboard considered a derivative work? How about an accessory for some kind of tool? Like a plug in, they are useless without the original device, but does that make them derivative works that need permission to be distributed? We'd argue not for copyright of the designs of physical goods, so why would it be different for software? There are clearly arguments either way and this isn't a settled matter.
- lewispollard 4y ago
  This isn't an addon though, it's a node based material shader in a blend file.
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    Agreed, it can be licensed any which way. I just had a bit of an ax to grind.
charcircuit 4y ago
No, worst case it just means you won't be able to redistribute blender + that addon.
nvrspyx 4y ago
Although the discussion around Blender add-ons and the GPL is interesting, this isn't an add-on and doesn't apply. It's a .blend scene, thus isn't bound by the GPL since it's an output from Blender. This is ultimately the equivalent of any other exported artwork, like a 3D model. Below is the relevant part from that page: > What you create with Blender is your sole property. All your artwork – images or movie files – including the .blend files and other data files Blender can write, is free for you to use as you like.

by mkl 4y ago

That licensing section doesn't make sense to me. Blender is GPL, so add-ons must be GPL too: https://www.blender.org/about/license/ https://www.blender.org/about/license/

indrora 4y ago

Gnu Emacs is GPL. Many Emacs plugins are not.

wyldfire 4y ago

It's likely the case that the author doesn't understand that they can't encumber their users under the terms of the license granted to them. > Sharing or selling Blender add-ons (Python scripts) > Blender’s Python API is an integral part of the software, used to define the user interface or develop tools for example. The GNU GPL license therefore requires that such scripts (if published) are being shared under a GPL compatible license. You are free to sell such scripts, but the sales then is restricted to the download service itself. Your customers will receive the script under the same license (GPL), with the same free conditions as everyone has for Blender.

sudosysgen 4y ago
Merely using an API doesn't infect GPL software (for example, syscalls on an OS). The actual legal argument from the FSF on this point is more convoluted, and hinges on the plug-in being a derivative work in the legal sense. Whether this is true or not isn't settled. It seems to me that the legal community leans in the direction that using an API doesn't make a work derivative in and of itself, and that transforming the actual work and redistributing the transformation (or the work itself) is required. It is however clearly a gray area.
- oh_sigh 4y ago
  Yeah...if that is the case, wouldn't nvidia graphic driver's kernel-shim-to-closed-source-binary not be legit, since the shim defines an API in the kernel and then the closed source blob uses that GPL'd API?
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    Precisely. Though perhaps NVidia would argue they're giving themselves a license exemption? If you understand drivers as plugins (which makes sense, really, drivers are kernel plugins), and if you understand plugins as derivative, it would be even worse. It would mean every driver on Windows's copyright is Microsoft's by default. And that the original NVidia closed source is already GPL.
    - my123 4y ago
      Not just NVIDIA, ZFS too. From the GPL perspective, any non GPL compatible license is considered the same way. That said, that part of the GPL on library linking was never attempted to be enforced in court. For additional entertainment: redistributing a linked GPL program to a non-GPL compatible non-OS bundled (those have an exception) library is supposed to be forbidden too, but is very often done. For example, for the Visual C++ runtimes. It’s supposed to not be okay according to the FSF, which does quite some overreach in their FAQs. A reminder that the FAQs themselves are _not_ part of the license.
      - pabs3 4y ago
        There is a way that Oracle could solve the ZFS situation; release a CDDLv2 that is compatible with the GPL, then the CDDLv1 auto-upgrade clause would mean that all CDDLv1 software that hasn't opted out of the upgrade clause would now be GPL compatible. Some parts of OpenZFS would need to be relicensed or reimplemented, but that job would be much smaller than reimplementing ZFS for GPL compatibility. More discussion here: https://lwn.net/Articles/894901/ https://lwn.net/Articles/894901/
    - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
      Drivers aren't plugins. They link to and incorporate GPL code. You can't grant special terms in that scenario. The best they can do is dual license their headers. The hazy area is where no linking happens and it's just a pure API without code sharing.
      - 4y ago
- wyldfire 4y ago
  Yes, I agree. However using an API that may-or-may-not be bound by the GPL is different (de facto) from using an API that the licensor claims is covered by the GPL. It's quite a bit more risky IMO. > using an API doesn't make a work derivative in and of itself Note that while it might be a gray area, there is some (recent) precedent [1]. Although a SCOTUS ruling isn't quite as binding as it used to be... :( [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_....
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    IIRC that case isn't that the using an API makes it a derivative work, but that the API itself is copyrighted and that making an implementation of that API is a copyright violation (except for fair use, etc...). EDIT: gpm is correct, they didn't arrive to such a conclusion.
    - gpm 4y ago
      > the API itself is copyrighted They didn't decide either way on that question. To quote wikipedia "This conclusion rendered the need to evaluate the copyright of the API unnecessary".
mnd999 4y ago
Maybe the do understand but they’re trying it anyway. Most people will just follow what it says. NFT bros are not the sharpest tools in the box.

sudosysgen 4y ago

It is not settled that add-ons have to be GPL. The add-ons are python programs that do not contain or link against Blender code. Instead, they are called by Blender itself (and can call Blender python APIs). It's not much different from a Linux userspace program, for example. There are reasonable arguments either way. For example, is an add-on for an electronics device that directly interfaces with the motherboard considered a derivative work? How about an accessory for some kind of tool? Like a plug in, they are useless without the original device, but does that make them derivative works that need permission to be distributed? We'd argue not for copyright of the designs of physical goods, so why would it be different for software? There are clearly arguments either way and this isn't a settled matter.

lewispollard 4y ago
This isn't an addon though, it's a node based material shader in a blend file.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  Agreed, it can be licensed any which way. I just had a bit of an ax to grind.

charcircuit 4y ago

No, worst case it just means you won't be able to redistribute blender + that addon.

nvrspyx 4y ago

Although the discussion around Blender add-ons and the GPL is interesting, this isn't an add-on and doesn't apply. It's a .blend scene, thus isn't bound by the GPL since it's an output from Blender. This is ultimately the equivalent of any other exported artwork, like a 3D model. Below is the relevant part from that page: > What you create with Blender is your sole property. All your artwork – images or movie files – including the .blend files and other data files Blender can write, is free for you to use as you like.