I can’t find an answer on some doubts concerning using some containers for animation, say, Mpeg, Flash. I don’t understand much in it, but I suppose they’re proprietary. If so, how it turns out Blender includes them? Can I use Blender to make animation legally for my work? Thanks alot for any hint.
the bledner license alows you to use anthing you craet with blender anyway you like,
sell it give it away keep it
its yours to do whatever you want
alf0 thank you. It’s a pity no one has answered in more detail. I’m still not sure about legality of having Blender at work and using it for animation, because of the codecs.
The Blender web-site makes it quite clear: Blender is freely available, under an open-source copyright license that is legally enforceable throughout the world. And, anything that you make using it – is yours.
Blender Foundation has recently begun charging for memberships (at a pittance …) and to limit certain materials and documentation only to those who pony up, but that is not a license fee or “royalty.” It’s simply an equitable way of covering the (increasing) financial costs of making Blender better and better, faster.
Indeed, Blender’s raison d’etre is to allow you to create 3D graphics and animations, to do with however you like.
Vendors of proprietary products use different financial models, but none of them charge royalties on the works that you have created using them.
Most codecs by nature are freely distributable. They have to be. Because the entire point is to get people using them and and exchanging data. And same goes for most players. It is a way to get people using technology that may be or once was tied into a commercial product or service. Adobe for example has a reader for Acrobat files that is free. And apparently does not restrict open source apps from using the proprietary data to save in that format.
You can research each codec if you like. But likely it is being used only if it does not restrict Blender’s EULA.
Fbx for example is more tricky. It can be used but has certain restrictions, which result in features that sometimes don’t work or are not included. But fbx as it exists in Blender is perfectly legal, along with, I am to assume, all of the codecs.
Thank you all very much. Obviously I was considering proprietary codecs as something that can never be used for free. I had some doubts say about H.264 codec which everywhere in the Internet is described as requiring fees in some (not quite clear for me) cases. That was my mistake, I think. Richard_Culver yes you’re right If that would be so Blender would not include them. now I see. Thank all of you one more time.
Yeah, I am sure it is true in some cases. I think in general though, companies want their codecs and formats used without restrictions. So it is more forgiving than other technology. Think of it like power. No one can buy your energy if you or someone does not invest in the infrastructure to deliver it. So freely distributed codecs are like investing in a power grid so people will have access to the technology (and thus making it more valuable) so you can charge money for professional applications and so on. Quick Time Pro, Adobe Acrobat, etc. Anyway I think you get the idea. But I was lucky and I attended a seminar in SF years ago when QT was first introduced, and promoted as a broad platform. And the Apple guys pretty much explained it how I did here. (along with hype about how great it was… lol)
Yes I got what you said. In this respect we could also compare codecs with say drivers for a videocard. Though H.264 should be paid in quite a certain number of cases. Look here for example:
Cool man. Thanks for the link.
Richard_Culver, thank you again. Good luck to you:)
Sure. You too.
Have just got some explanation from mpegla.com.
Blender Foundation has not taken any Licenses from MPEG, and as a result, their (BF) end products with AVC/H.264 functionality are not licensed. And since anyone in the product chain has liability for an unlicensed product, they can only suggest choosing a product from a licensed supplier.
In other words, anyone in the product chain must pay for the AVC. As soon as BF has not paid, please make a conclusion yourself.
Well it is a little more complex than that company is leading on to.
There are open versions of these codecs. For example here:
I would assume that these issues have been worked out already. But the best source of information is going to come directly from the Blender Foundation. So I would contact them directly.
I agree. I sent them (BF) the question about H.264 yesterday. If they reply, I’ll put their answer here. Then, OpenH.264. If it were written this way in Blender options, I would not worry about it. But, that’s not so. It’s given certainly as H.264.
Sure. Another discussion worth a read.
It is old. But interesting.
Here is it! The answer from BF:
Blender is following the standards and practices of the Linux ecosystem. In that regard we are protected by (and member of) the industry platform “Open Invention Network”. https://openinventionnetwork.com/
We also use GPL 3, and use the FFmpeg library that is officially approved as GPL 3 as well, being distributed and offered by all major Linux distros.
As a user you should not have to bother about these patents. If you use Blender, the only thing you legally have to accept is our GPL license, and can hold us responsible for correctly sharing GPL software legally.
But here is a simple text you can read about it if you wish. https://ffmpeg.org/legal.html
Nice. I suspected it was something like that. Good job hunting it down!
Thanks, Richard. Have nice day!