Re: Blender status change

[jfm2@club-internet.fr]

> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:35:37 -0500 (EST)
> From: Donovan Rebbechi <elflord@pegasus.rutgers.edu>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> Sender: owner-independence-l@independence.seul.org
> Reply-To: independence-l@independence.seul.org
> X-To-Get-Off-This-List: mail majordomo@independence.seul.org, body unsubscribe independence-l
> X-UIDL: 6b7266f228668e889175e114d1c05e77
> 
> On Wed, 24 Mar 1999, yiyus wrote:
> 
> > I love Blender, it should stay in the distribution. If you are worried about
> > the license look at http://www.blender.nl/NaN.html where you can read
> > "Blender 2.0: - GPL and/or plugin API." I don't see GPL as a very
> > restrictive license :-)
> 
> I don't think it is clear that they are releasing anything under the GPL.
> Surfing their webpage just left me more confused. Try this out for size
> ... "Also the freeware (and possibly GPL) strategy of blender is
> important"..."It's about the 'public image' of Blender" 
> 
> Perhaps we need to make it clear that "free" is much better than 
> "freeware".
> 
> It looks like he is considering releasing the core under the GPL, and
> adding commercial "plug-ins". If this is the case, maybe it is acceptable,
> as it means that he would be effectively giving away the program and
> selling modules for it. 
> 

If they relase the core under GPL then there is achance there would be
GPLed plugins.


> Maybe it's worth emailing the author and trying to get to the bottom of
> this. 
> 

Yes.