Addons licence and python modules?

[ldo]

@zeealpal

Google made a Java API + Googles Libraries/Implementation of said language/api. None of the code my Android application used was Oracles implementation of the Java language. However, the Google ‘Java’ API I am using is 99% a copy of Oracles Java API.

Oracle was saying that Googles Java API (not the code behind it) was a copy of Oracles API, which it was. The case determined that an API is not copyrightable.

In comparison, when using Blenders ‘API’, you are also using Blenders actual code, the libraries that API calls

Let’s see if I get this straight: Google did a server side implementation of the Java API, which Oracle is claiming copyright over, while the Blender Foundation is claiming copyright over the client side of their API. You are saying that one of these is OK, while the other is not?

[zeealpal]

@ldo

Let’s see if I get this straight: Google did a server side implementation of the Java API, which Oracle is claiming copyright over, while the Blender Foundation is claiming copyright over the client side of their API. You are saying that one of these is OK, while the other is not?

I’m not 100% over this, so I do apolgise but is the Blender Foundation actually claiming copyright as the issue for why python Addons must be GPL?

AFAIK Blender is the only implementation of the Blender API, which means anyone using Blender’s API is inherently using GPL code if they use any of the Blender modules in their script and will have to comply with the GPL.

[zeealpal]

That is tricky, and I was more looking at focusing on the API vs Implementation when I replied, which seemed to be missed in a lot of the discussion (I.e. loading any Blender libraries to use via the API is different to an API itself)
I guess the answer to that will be determined as the case is still ongoing. I don’t have an answer to that.

With the Goggle/Oracle fiasco, I feel like Open JDK is a good example.

Open JDK and Java SE both implement the same Java API, and are from Oracle. Google used to use Apache Harmony (now retired) as its Java implementation, when the lawsuit commenced.

Google did switch to Open JDK implementation of the API as it begin GPL released by Oracle (Sun) would mean they intended it to be used.

[ldo]

@zeealpal

AFAIK Blender is the only implementation of the Blender API, which means anyone using Blender’s API is inherently using GPL code

But that doesn’t mean there is any GPL code in their code that uses their API. Therefore there shouldn’t be a restriction on them licensing their code how they like.

[ldo]

@zeealpal

I was more looking at focusing on the API vs Implementation when I replied, which seemed to be missed in a lot of the discussion

No, that is the whole point of the discussion. Code that implements an API (or that makes use of it) is copyrightable, the API itself should not be.

[kkar]

@Zoot

If adding a piece of art you created to the add-on Zip file would allow you to subvert the GPL and claim control over the add-on because it includes a component that you control exclusively then it seems like the GPL would be useless and anyone could just add something like this to their copy of your GPL program and say "well, yes, the code is GPL but you can’t distribute it because it needs this file I own in order to work. A lot of people have the idea that the GPL only applies to “code” but that feels fishy to me.

Sure but that has nothing to do with any form of artistic assets that might be bundled with an add-on. What you are saying is mostly about graphic elements that are used in an add-on, like an icon, a text fonts etc. Also if someone tries to do that, the evil intention will be very clear to us, and the community will react negatively.

My original comment was about artistic works that are distributed along with the add-ons and those things can be licensed differently than GPL.

Lets say I made a gallery asset browser add-on that I am using as a conduit to sell my 10.000 assets in it. I might even distribute the add-on with couple of free assets. In this example, the add-on is fully GPL but you neither can be the sole owner of the assets nor can redistribute them as long as the owner of those assets wont give such permission to you exclusively.