The Blender Animation Studio doesn’t use paid addons. As they are obviously very interested in having good and optimized workflows, the risk that the developers are holding back because of paid addons does pretty much not exist.
Exactly and if they add something, that will only be the idea.
I mean, they will not use the code of the addon, they will make something similar in C in blender for better performances.
That will be totally different from the addon in fact because they want to keep it consistant to the other parts of blender.
They added my pie menus and removed all smart stuffs because it’s too different, that don’t fit.
It’s the same for most of the addons, we make something we want but that the BF would not want because too different of the blender workflow.
I’m not, but uncertainty breeds fear and doubt and is ultimately good for no one. It’d be good to hear from someone who doesn’t need to include IANAL at the beginning. People who write and sell addons would hopefully have some clarity on where they stand with their cottage industry, and people who buy them would have a better idea what they can and can’t do with them.
In particular, the text in the FAQ doesn’t cover bundled assets, or GPL bridges, nor does it clarify the rights and obligations of users with regard to sold addons on gumroad or blendermarket. In short, it could use an update.
2 Likes
My understanding is that GPL does not necessarily protect anything other then code or source very well, creative commons often being used in those cases, as it is GPL compatible, standard copyright is also GPL compatible.
I am not a lawyer and these are my findings, i could be completely wrong <- just in case 
This is left up to the developers of course, when it comes to certain things, icons, blend files, branding, documentation, etc…, the argument can be made that the tools do not need them to run, with exceptions depending on the addon.
Wanted to address some points on distribution.
The best part of the GPL is that it does not limit what you can do with the software
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it.
You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them.
This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
The GPL allows you to charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.
Under the GPL software that requires a fee is not required to be distributed for free to the public without charge, note that distribution is not required, if it was the GPL would not be a free license. See Definition of free software.
However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.
2 Likes
You won’t get clarity even from a qualified legal opinion. A lawyer is likely to tell you “you can’t do that”, because that minimizes their liability.
For example, here’s the answer from the FSF that Ton brought up:
Also, don’t forget that the FSF is an interest group that is unlikely to publish answers that would help keep software “more proprietary”. The GPL FAQ is problematic for the same reason.
For the sake of caution, I tell people that they can’t just copy a zip that they downloaded which contains some GPL code, because they can’t assume the GPL covers all the content within. That’s the safe answer.
2 Likes
A post was split to a new topic: Filling the back of text
The closest to “clarity” with regard to the licensing of APIs in the USA that we have at the moment are the court decisions in Oracle v. Google. As of now, the courts have ruled that APIs can be copyrighted and that using an API in a “clean room” implementation (not even calling any copyrighted code, which is what an add-on would to) does not count as “fair use”.
In the EU, ruling is that APIs cannot be copyrighted.
Thus, if you want to make money from open source software, my recommendation is to become a lawyer. That sounds to me like it has better job security than a plugin developer. 
6 Likes
ahhaha, this makes me smile so hard. Back in 2012-2013 there were “Blender clones” being sold (even to government agencies) on some European countries (which I will not invoke since most of the community here knows where this happened). This was the reason why some of the areas in the Blender code were fully un-scripted (un-documented if you want to put it that way) and you had to be in a real close circle from certain coders to MOD the 2.61 version. So when those people started to sell blender as “a new 3d package” (but in reality was blender 2.61 with some other icons and hidden windows) people arose a debate like this thread.
In reality the only rules that apply for me is “The creator of the code holds the rules”. MODifying a chunk of code doesn´t make anyone the “OWNER”, except for the Blender Foundation.
I´d input a long yadda-yadda about international copyright laws regarding software, cyber security and protocols for “educational”, “government”, “scientific” purposes when using (specifically Blender) an open source software. But I´ll spare this to all of you by saying:
The foundations are placed so anyone could build whatever they want. Just like someone doesn´t own MS Word for writting a movie script solely, in the same way: everything that can be done with Blender comes from the Foundation alone. This is why we have “official releases”, “official training”, “official developers” founded.
I’m not sure what “the rules that apply for me” means. The rules that apply to you (and everyone else) are international copyright and contract law, including all the uncertainties and complications.
The owner (as far as copyright goes) of the code (or modifications of the code) is the author, not the Blender Foundation. The Blender Foundation holds the “Blender” trademark, so it could shut down clones of Blender that are branded as Blender.
However, the Foundation doesn’t hold the copyright to the code. That’s why a license change would be so difficult, it would require all the copyright holders - all contributors over decades of development - to agree.
There are some projects that require contributors to hand over their copyright (or usage rights, where that isn’t possible) to some controlling entity. Blender isn’t one of those projects.
Thanks for putting it like that BeerBaron. Good perspective.
Should we delete the “official” part in “Official Blender Release” over their website? And many other “official” names? Heck, being it so, let´s switch the name as well.
Official as in = they hold the rights. Not the modding people or extra code added.
I think you get my point.
The point is that they don’t hold the copyright. That’s why they can’t change the Blender license to something that isn’t a headache to interface with. They can still do “official” things as in issued by the office of the Blender Foundation.
1 Like
Which rights?
The right to the trademark “Blender” with its logo? Yes.
The copyright the code? No, not even the code of the official Blender release. The original contributors hold that copyright.
The Blender Foundation is allowed to publish “official” Blender releases because the GPL license allows them to and because they hold the trademark, not because they “own the code”.
This is a meaningful distinction that I’d like to make.
I actually don’t, I was under the impression that there’s a misunderstanding here that should be cleared up.
1 Like
Here’s a pretty good writeup on this topic: Software Below The Poverty Line
3 Likes
I had a pretty long read for the GPL just past this week (because of other software issues), so basically it states the profit part, the sharing part and the modification part to be held PUBLICLY, as reward of doing it so: the MOD copies can be re-distributed, and the WORK done with the software can be sold. I guess we agree to those lines on the GPL. Right?
…But…
The “creative official” directions as to where the software should head towards, (at least in the general sense of DISTRIBUTION) is (and will be) held by the BF (Blender Foundation). I guess you could also agree on those lines.
…IF…
that wasn´t the case, the word “official” would not mean anything, and the efforts to guide the software direction of grow wouldn´t need to be funded. This “OFFICIAL” funding, OFFICIAL developing, OFFICIAL rules of design is what makes the BF the OWNER in terms of GENERATING CODE (repos, servers, etc…).
So now that I´ve explained myself, take away the “official” and then we can say the BF are not the “owners” of the code. They are. Will always be. Will always direct the software towards the direction they need. And for it to continue to be so, they need the funds which were accurately described on the @ambi url share.
The Blender foundation owns and controls the distribution of Blender under the Blender “brand”, including the trademarks and the services offered through blender.org and subsidiaries. Call that “official” if you will, but it really comes down to the brand, not “the code” and not “the software”.
Now, consider the fact that most Linux distributions build their own versions of Blender, perhaps with their own modifications on top. There could be a trademark dispute here, like with Firefox and Debian, who chose to rebrand Firefox as “Iceweasel” for a while. In practice, there usually isn’t, because there’s no conflict of interest.
“The software” or “the code” is a bit more amorphous. Technically, nothing stops a gang of rogue Blender developers from creating a fork of Blender, let’s call it “Shredder”. They’ll take all of the code of Blender, plus some amazing features they added through their elite coding skills. They take full creative direction. This program turns out so successful, the “official” Blender is abandoned and they get all the moneys. Waving the white flag, the Blender Foundation chooses the “Shredder” codebase to be the new Blender and instates the rogue developers as the new leadership.
Scenarios like this have played out multiple times with FOSS projects, due to conflicts of interests, leadership issues, disagreements of direction, and so on. Ultimately, the brand doesn’t really matter. The “official” part doesn’t really matter. The software matters. Almost nobody uses OpenOffice anymore, for instance.
I´m so glad tech ethics exist. Now that we´re broiling this subject, let´s talk about “blender for artists” Bfoa… 
I’d use it, simply to take advantage of the subtle increase in overall inherent radness.
3 Likes
You can say about that fork what you want, but the author put his money where his mouth is. You gotta respect that.
At the other end of the spectrum, you have E-Cycles, a fork by necessity, demonstrating that the BF judgement isn’t the be-all-end-all as far as Blender is concerned.
For the moment, the BF leadership is accepted by its userbase, but even benevolent dictatorships can go awry…
