Where can I find the sources of Publisher and the Player and /or
Webplugin? Can´t find them on download.blender.org.
Or does it mean Blender is only partially OS?
i found Blender Publisher 2.25b Source somewhere, But i dont remember where… 
the source for the plugin, player, and blender never really went anywhere
but the source for things like the publisher key did
source archive at:
http://download.blender.org/source/
I don’t belive the original released source is there, I don’t know where you would find that online.
what part of the source do you want [and why?]
Someone told me that Blender does not comply to the GPL and I want to proof the opposite. As the GPL states:
“For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable.”
I was just wondering. At the place were I got the exe of 2.25
from there was no respective source. But why are you asking?
I thought asking for the complete sourcecode of a GPLed program
is one of the basic pillars the GPL stands on. So whats wrong with it?
blender publisher 2.25 wasn’t open source [nor were prior versions], it was owned by a company named NaN [not a number] and the source was purchased by the blender foundation [founded by ton] when NaN went bankrupt.
blender has had several variations on free and non-free versions. Usually some feature would be available for a cost [at one time, python scripting], but later these features would become available to everyone for free.
not all of the source was made available, and some versions of the source prior to 2.25 were released with the permission of stockholders of NaN.
you must’ve not been here very long to not know that
http://blender3d.org/cms/History.53.0.html
[my previous comment might not be entirely correct, I’ve was only using blender for a few releases before blender publisher]
That is not an answer, however:
“The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.”
http://jordiweb.net/docs/IT/The_Open_Code_Market.html
I do not want to be a pain in the neck, but was just wondering
why some people can use it commercially and others better
stay off from commercial use. Two classes of Blender users has a bitter taste.
I do not like that.
you have a problem with the fact that blender hasn’t always been open source?
the dual license?
as of yet nobody has purchased the blender source, if they did they would have to get approval to use many of the modifications to blender since it became open source
also, they wouldn’t need to worry about the GPL if they were modifying the current GPL version of the source if they do not distribute the result of their work [if they modify something, and keep it entirely to them selves they haven’t done anything wrong]
also there isn’t anything that blender can’t be used for commercial purposes.
so, I’m really confused about what you’re asking. Can you try to be a bit more clear, I’m not trying to start a flame war or anything. [I answer any question I can that I see, if I misintrepreted you my apoligies]
… in case I wasn’t clear before, the source for the player, plugin, and blender are all available, just not directly from 2.25 [the publisher key features are missing, but blender features [like NLA] are still in the source]
Anyway theres no need to get nervous, dear Blenderheads, as
Open Code Market (URL above) also states:
Now that all the players and the basic rules have been laid down, the functioning of the market can be detailed further. Among the different combinations of services that a customer might choose, one could be the following:
-
An individual or organisation needs an application, or an extra feature to an existing application, and posts its requirements to a Project Consultant.
-
The Project Consultant assesses the needs and (if necessary) breaks down the project into different tasks, assigning a time and a cost to each of them. One of the main priorities is to identify at this stage as much GPL Software as possible that can be recycled to fulfil the project.
-
This assessment is peer-reviewed and sent to the customer for approval. After his commitment to the project and a down payment, the project is assigned to a Project Manager, and goes to tender.
-
The whole project is then put to tender globally among programmers. Depending on the size of the project, single programmers or programmer’s syndicates compete for it in an international open bidding.
Use of GPL software that had been overlooked in step two is not only not penalised, but encouraged. This also helps ensure that the project manager has indeed identified as much GPL code already available as possible.
/
I hope i did not upset you or anybody else. I really only wanted
to clarify my own personal thoughts. But i am a bit surprised
about your suddenly changing language. That is hard to understand.
I am a technical person.
[…]
Look here: http://packages.debian.org/stable/graphics/blender
Yes, but did you click on “Other versions of blender”? See: http://packages.debian.org/testing/graphics/blender
Blender is a liberated package — a great triumph of the open source community in fact, which actually raised the cash to buy its freedom. I’m pretty sure it’s the first buy-out of this kind, and I’m absolutely sure that it is the largest to date.
Your own Open Code Market reference uses Blender as an example for this reason, BTW. Just “find in page” for “blender”.
and here (page 20)
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/free_issues/issue_01/issue.pdf
Turns out you’re referencing my article, so I guess I should reply. 
For the record, I thought at the time of writing that doing 3D CAD in Blender might be prohibitively difficult (or pointless), but after having worked with Blender for just a bit, I’m pretty sure it could be done entirely with Python scripting and that it would be worthwhile. A big project, to be sure, but probably the right way to do it — rather than building directly on OpenGL, for example, which would require massive effort on interface design which Blender has already done.
I first encountered Blender in 2000 when I was looking for a means to create a game environment (IIRC, there was no “Blender Game Engine” at that time, we just wanted 3D models). There was a great deal of consternation over the licensing issue. At that time, Blender was “freeware” or as we prefer to say “non-free”. You could get a copy at no cost, but only from the supplier and without source code. Had the save format been in an open file format we might’ve used it anyway, since it would at least be theoretically possible to manipulate the source files with a free-licensed program. However, Blender’s save format is binary, as you probably know.
We considered various schemes, including writing a Python script to save and restore from a free 3D format. There didn’t seem to be any clear leader as to what format to use, though, and frankly, we were all fairly clueless about using 3D rendering software.
Furthermore, since Blender was non-free and since it is really quite a difficult program to get started on, I never really tried to learn it myself. And the modelers I contacted never really got interested enough in the game project to work on it. This was one of several factors that killed the project.
However . . . “That was then, and this is now”!
Blender is now under the GPL, and is FREE SOFTWARE. Absolutely. No caveats. Debian Legal agrees, and they are the toughest customers on Earth for free software standards, IMHO (The “Open Source Definition” is looser, but of course, also agrees). This makes the file format open, too, since there exists a free implementation for reading it now. Had we been trying to write that game now, we could’ve just gone to town with Blender and the project probably wouldn’t have died.
(Cue the singing choir of angels) 
Of course, just because you change the license, doesn’t mean that all the documentation and source files have been updated to reflect it — and that means of course that you will still find Blender docs floating around with all the old licensing issues in them. This causes confusion, but there’s no way to truly eliminate the problem — you can’t erase the web. So the echos just take a long time to die, that’s all.
Strictly speaking, the earlier versions of the program were not released under the GPL, so it’s possible that they might be non-free. In practice, this has zero effect, since you could always recover some previous functionality by modifying the current sources, if there was a problem of some kind. And it’s the current sources you probably care about anyway.
I suspect that your source who thinks Blender “does not comply with the GPL” is simply out-of-date or fooled by outdated documentation. You will find, however, that the newest (2.36?) documentation correctly describes the licensing situation.
There is of course, another issue with the “Publisher” specifically, which is that a free-licensed release of the full Blender application pretty much obsoletes it. Demand for a special, crippled version which can only do playback is understandably diminished if there’s no obstacle to getting the full version. The one reason you might, of course, would be smaller executable size (if that’s true, which I’m not sure). And that probably accounts for why you are having trouble finding the source for it.
I’m confused by your statement about “two classes of users” and “commercial” and “non-commercial” use. The GPL of course, permits ANY use, including “commercial”. It does, of course, not allow a commercial user to establish a monopoly by closing the source, but that’s the only limitation. I wasn’t aware that there was a dual license, but if so, that’s probably what it would allow — for a price.
There’s clearly still a use for a web plugin, though. I’m interested in that myself.
The one problem might be with the game engine: Since it is meant to be distributed with the game, there is some possibility that it might be interpreted as being “linked” with the game. If the game itself is non-free, then this would violate the GPL.
AFAIK, Blender games are integrated using Python, however, which is an interpreted language, and under at least one legal theory ( :x ) interpreting non-free code on a GPL interpreter is not a violation. Authors sometimes try to make this more obvious by using the LGPL which specifically allows linking, though.
My own guess is that this isn’t a problem, but I haven’t researched it enough to know (and it would be a non-issue for me, since if I ever go back to developing that game, it will be free-licensed too).
Hi there,
You said:
I suspect that your source who thinks Blender “does not comply with the GPL” is simply out-of-date or fooled by outdated documentation. You will find, however, that the newest (2.36?) documentation correctly describes the licensing situation.
I was only referencing 2.25 cause we Blenderheads need it to learn the
gameengine. The old examples are incompatible with the new Blender GE,
however the gained knowledge is.
Also if you sell your artistic work you need to distribute it separately from the executable for the reasonyou already mentioned. If your customer wants it protected, you might get in trouble, cause you need to find some solution, which you need to figure out in advance for obvious reasons.
There may arise other issues when you do that.
“My source”
was primarily this Debian Non-free
statement which is signed with a quite new date. It says:
Last Modified: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 01:32:23 +0000
You said: “Your own Open Code Market”
No, no is not mine and i don´t certainly owe it, i saw it the first time
when i referenced.
However i see, dealing with such an hot iron one can
not be thorough enough, but this is virtually impossible because of all
the information scattered around in time an server-space. And my limited
time of course. Guess i am not the only one.
Apart from this issue i think its an excellent solution for the community.
Beeing rather new to Blender its just a bit confusing.
Thats why i was asking.
I think i just have to be albeit more patient until i understand all this
somewhat better.
Actually i don´t know wether i will get it any clearer just by asking
well, Blender probably has to be experienced to make real progress.
I was not aware thats this is not only valid for the technical point
of view.
Thank you for your contribution to my question. Have fun with Blender.
Sorry for the book.
Um, why do you need the old version, then? You say you need it to learn
the Game Engine, but then you say the old version is incompatible with
the new engine. Why can’t you just use the new information?
Anyway, you can read the documentation whether the old version is
free or not. So I’m really confused by what’s bothering you here.
This would probably be obvious if I were familiar with the Game Engine, I
suppose, but I’ve got an API for it, and it looks pretty well documented.
Also if you sell your artistic work you need to distribute it separately from the executable for the reasonyou already mentioned.
It needs to be in a separate file, yes. Just putting it on the same CD, for example, is “mere aggregation”, which the GPL permits.
“My source”
was primarily this Debian Non-free
statement which is signed with a quite new date. It says:
Last Modified: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 01:32:23 +0000
When it was modified is irrelevant — it’s describing a past release.
You said: “Your own Open Code Market”
No, no is not mine and i don´t certainly owe it, i saw it the first time
when i referenced.
No, I said “your own open code market reference”. The words “your
own open code market” are being used as a modifier for “reference”. It
is the reference which belongs to you. I didn’t think you wrote it, I
just figured that you must have trusted what it said in order to use it
as a basis for argument, and among other things, it says that Blender
was freed!
However i see, dealing with such an hot iron one can
Heh. No ire here anyway, I’m just chatting. I can’t speak for others.
I was rather excited by the news about Blender going to a free-license,
though, so I may’ve gushed a bit there.
Apart from this issue i think its an excellent solution for the community.
You see, I’m still unclear on which “issue” you mean. Disorderly documentation?
Red herrings created by old information? Or?
Beeing rather new to Blender its just a bit confusing.
Yeah, well, I can relate to that – note the sig. I’ve known about Blender for a
long time, but I’ve only been using it productively for about a week.