I try to understand this text:
http://www.blender.org/education-help/faq/gpl-for-artists/#c6569
First question is if it’s up to date.
Second I find it a bit unclear. If we link in binary Python modules they have to be compatible with the GPL (so far I think it’s clear), but do that act also imply our scripts in that case have to be GPL?
I don’t think that ‘linking in’ modules makes them GPL at all - if you have external Python files (either that you write yourself or not), and you make a game with them, they’re compiled outside of Blender, as you can see the compiled script files now present next to the editable files. In other words, using Python modules won’t make them GPL-licensed.
Linking in anything anywhere does not make it GPL. The question is if it’s OK to distribute the code if it’s not GPL… I take it as You mean it is.
How to interpret this then:
Not OK is:
Author publishes a Blender script, calling a compiled C library with own code, both under own license.
And it can’t really make a difference if the C library is own code or not… This is supposed to make it clearer:
The divider is “If the script runs in the Blender Interpretor”. When the script calls code not running in the Blender Interpretor you are making bindings to other facilities, and the regular GNU GPL rules apply.
Gnash… but the first ok is probably most confusing:
OK is:
Author publishes a Blender script mixed with own code, under own license.
What?
Okay, after reading that, I think that it’s just saying that you can’t either compile a C library with a Blender script (not one you made, but one of Blender’s script files) and license it differently from the GPL, or put your scripts into a Blender binary and then license the whole thing under a different license agreement. To be sure, it’s oddly worded.
I really would like to find some clear wordings… I consider to license my components implementation (now under the working name flexicomp) as LGPL - But I don’t want to mislead people - Are there ‘strange’ circumstances that still force the code to be GPL to allow distribution - Then I want to state them.
If it’s external python files, it should be fine. Is it a re-build of Blender, or just Python code?
To be sure:
DO NOT put your resources into the application file (the exe)!
better put in a little start blend that calls an external .blend and place everything else in separate files (.blend, .py, jpg .wav …)
the application file = GPL (including everything you put into it.)
the other files = your/other licence (as long it contains ONLY your resources)
Yes it sounds wired:
You put everything in easy to extract files and you are save with licence issues. [technical open but protected by your licence]
or
You put it into one file making it a bit more difficult (but not much more difficult!) but you have to publish everything in it under GPL. [technical protected but open by licence]
If You make it an EXE it’s clear - every thing in it must be GPL.
If You us a proprietary binary python module You cant play at all - that’s clear.
If You us a GPL (without stated exceptions) binary python module Your python have be GPL to conform to the module - thats clear.
But… If You use a GPL compatible binary python module that don’t put demand on Your python codes license… like most of them… What happens then??? Do the ‘script is part of usage’ still apply?? That’s the part that is unclear.