GPL Discussion

[SaintHaven]

@Geographic

Unless you thought BGE is a game engine thats great, i don’t see why GPL would be a problem.
but i can’t imagine serious game developers using BGE, and FBX even within its own branch of application is a poor standard to switch applications and version, compare that to open formats.
So why does a Modo user bring up Blender-GPL as a problem?

Sigh…

1. Your comment “So why does a Modo user bring up Blender-GPL as a problem?” is completely unnecessary and it only undermines any argument you are trying to make. It not only makes assumptions about the user but implies an “us vs them” situation with regards to the software.
   Stop it.
   It does more harm than good.
   This was written for you, its a good read if you want to boost Blender’s image rather than damage it: How to Be a Positive Member of the Blender Community (don't be a fanboy)

2. BGE? Irrelevant. I didn’t even mention it, nor do I care about it. Lets not make assumptions to fulfill confirmation biases or seek to create a straw man to target. This thread is not even strictly about GPL, or my use of X software for that matter,…please try not to shift it in a completely irrelevant direction.

3. Since this thread is not about GPL on its own, lets get this out of the way so that it doesn’t have to go on ad infinitum. Going back to my post regarding GPL, I clearly stated this:

@SaintHaven

There are simply better licenses out there for open source software…

Thus, it is not that open source is bad, but that GPL is not a good license type for Blender and the industry/market it is part of…especially as it relates to future growth potential of Blender. As Ton himself stated, “Blender’s GNU GPL license is sometimes considered restrictive, since we can’t link to or include non-GPL-compliant software.”

I ask again why Cycles would move to Apache 2.0 if GPL is the ideal choice? Why would MIT be the most common open source license type (over double that of GPL)? Developers are NOT making these choices for arbitrary reasons.

For the sake of articulation, I’ll post what Lawyer Joseph Morris said regarding the GPL license:

The GPL sharing provisions involve nuance and ambiguity. Companies adopting GPL software have to ask “are we going to end up having to release our other software that integrates with this under the GPL?” Just getting through the hurdle of doing that legal-technical analysis can bog down adoption of the GPL’d software; and even when a company does a thoughtful analysis, the end result is sometimes “yeah, we’d rather not risk it”.

Some companies have blanket policies against the GPL, either out of misunderstanding, an abundance of caution, a desire to not engage in complex legal-technical analyses, or a combination of all of the above. I’ve also seen startups avoid incorporating GPL software in their products because potential acquirers avoid it. If you are releasing software under a GPL license, it is also necessary to determine what the sharing criteria are, which vary between the different GPL licenses and can affect when downstream users have to release their source code.

Another way of looking at it is that you’re picking a license based on what you are afraid of. All of these licenses assume you’re afraid of being sued. The MIT license is if you’re afraid no one will use your code; you’re making the licensing as short and non-intimidating as possible. The Apache License you are somewhat afraid of no one using your code, but you are also afraid of legal ambiguity and patent trolls. With the GPL licenses, you are afraid of someone else profiting from your work (and ambiguity, and patent trolls).

GPL is risky for a lot of companies, many who would also be developing their own closed source tech. Take Allegorithmic and their creation of “Substances” for example. It can safely be integrated into Maya, Modo, Unreal Engine, Unity…ect but then it gets tricky if Blender users want to see a plugin for it in Blender. GPL is then a bigger deterrent rather than an incentive. It makes it more difficult to play nice with everything that exist in our industry, and instead isolates it into a world of its own to varying degrees. Do you want Blender to exist within a bubble?

You can be all for open source software/“open formats”, but it would be simply foolish to think that the world of open source is some how tied to GPL and GPL only. OpenCOLLADA for example is licensed under MIT. Again this is not being done for no reason. If you want more software to adopt “open formats”, do you think they can or will if they were licensed under GPL?

Use your head. Know the difference. Be professional.