That’s a strawman fallacy though; nobody suggested that. However, in cases where there is room for interpretation or doubt it is solid advice.
2 Likes
As to comply with the laws, you do not need to be a lawyer to do so. You learn what are the things within the law and you comply with it.
If you are involved in modifying and distributing software code, you read and research what is the right thing to do to comply with licenses. You do not need to be a lawyer.
About gray areas, you can email the Free Software Foundation for them to clarify. If this is still a gray area, I recommend to the markets not to sell the product, apparently there cases where the author of the product would be delegating responsibilities to the market site? It could be dangerous for the market.
2 Likes
What E-Cycles and K-Cycles authors have done is perfectly legal (and according to comments in their forum threads, these projects are very appreciated by the Blender community). What they did is re-using code from other open-source projects (Blender and Cycles) and it’s perfectly permitted. There is no reason to blame them for forking Blender & Cycles and selling their projects.
That being said, I agree, it would have been nice for all of us if these improvements were included in Blender but who knows… maybe one day, they will. 
What users and developers can do is written in licenses, here: Apache and GPL.
Software licenses give users and developers rights and obligations (and they should be respected).
For example, the GPL license allows anyone to read, reuse, modify, fork, share and even sell the source code (even without authorization of the original author).
The issue here is not about wether or not they can sell Blender forks: they can.
The issue here is that the source code of both these projects is not provided by default ; that it is only provided on demand (and it’s against the terms of the GPL v3 license).
But as julianeisel said here: https://devtalk.blender.org/t/gpl-license-discussion-blender-forks-e-cycles-or-any-other-fork/15551/257
(thank you @YAFU for pointing it out).
Individual parts on their own may be licensed under varying licenses. Just like Cycles is licensed as Apache 2, or libraries by others that Blender uses and are licensed in various ways.
The important point is when they are distributed in a combined work (the definition of “combined work” is a discussion on its own), that has to be done in a GPLv2+ compliant manner. Since parts of Blender are not license compatible with GPLv2 (e.g. Cycles’ Apache 2), but only GPLv3, any combination of Blender with these parts has to be distributed under GPLv3.
So again, individual parts have varying licenses. Most of Blender’s own code being GPLv2+. But if you combine all of Blender’s parts in to a single program and distribute that, one currently has to do so under the GPLv3.
If E-Cycles or K-Cycles are released under the GPL v3 license, then their developers have to provide the source code to their customers.
I don’t understand why it is so complicated for them understand that they have to comply with the license (that they chose and agreed to agree to its terms).
6 Likes
I think the fact that Octane does release it’s source code on Github sets a pretty strong precedent. As @eklein said, they’re a corporation with access to lawyers etc. It would be prudent of @eklein and @bliblubli to take note of that.
From what I’ve seen from @eklein and @bliblubli, they’re reacting as if the community is attacking them for trying to make a fair buck but I think it’s important that they understand that the open source community is built around the structures provided by the copyleft philosophies that the licenses define. Going against the licenses is essentially going against the community.
The onus is on them to ensure they comply to the licenses when they release software based on those licenses, claiming ignorance or perceived confusion is no excuse when they could reach out to the FSF for clarification.
8 Likes
The elephant in the room is; any customer of these products has the right to distribute the source code and binaries. As you mentioned; copyleft.
I have seen somewhere per seat pricing (can’t find it now), still trying to wrap my head around how you can charge GPL software per seat.
1 Like
Well there’s nothing wrong with selling GPL software as long as you provide the source code with it. I get that the developers are worried that someone will take the code and give it away for free but that is the license and you have to trust that the community will rather support you than just grab a free version.
If you look at any python based addon sold on the marketplaces, they all inherently include the source code but you don’t see people hosting free clones or trying to rip off the original developers, it’s just not done.
6 Likes
I think people confuse what is and isn’t permitted. If I can refer away from blender and just look at Linux for a second. Most companies that produce a commercial version of Linux is still an open source product, typically (and I am sure there are exceptions around the edges) is that they sell access to support and guarantee a level of service that corporate companies demand and hence pay for.
It is already starting to become ancient history, but the relationship between red-hat and centos was strange. We ran multiple versions of centos, however if we found a bug in a tool we had to verify it on red hat before reporting to the supplier. So typically we ran a paid for a few red hat licences.
Most people who produce plugins which are under GPL, the most successful ones, operate under that model. The ones who produce one plugin once and expect it to roll in forever… I can’t think of one example of those.
2 Likes
Err, Apachee-licensed cycles tho…
Wrong. So long as a written statement is provided along with the binary that clearly states whom to ask and gives a guarantee that the source will be provided upon such request, it is perfectly valid under GPL v3.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid
Mmm it was not meant to be a joke, but I somehow didn’t notice the last push was 5 years ago. I’ll update my answer as soon as I get to a computer.
Without looking at their source changes, mind. The relevant change(s) made by OTOY may remain unchanged since then. I doubt it, but it’s not impossible.
Except that currently, no written statement is provided along with the E-Cycles binary… (I don’t know about K-Cycles).
None of the .txt files that come along the binary states where to download the source files.
The written offer should contain instructions on how to obtain the source, It’s not required to offer a download link, having you write a letter to ask for it, and shipping code on a physical medium (at cost) is allowed.
given you indicate there is no offer at all, it’s somewhat arguing semantics at this point, but I thought it be worth noting that other options beyond downloads are allowed.
Might engrave the code on stone tablets and ship it in containers. It’ll arrive in a few months. 
Not allowed, the exact wording is a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange while stone tablets are unquestionably a durable physical medium , they are not customarily used for software interchange.
3 Likes
My two cents.
In past I was hoping that Blender could be changed to Apache license because of GPL which is blocking commercial plugins to be integrated in Blender (like Substance, Corona, Rayfire etc.).
Now, I’m hoping that Cycles could be changed to GPL. It would finally ended every license nuances, I guess. I know that mainly purpose of choosing Apache for Cycles was better intergrating into commercial software, but it is still relevant? Cycles is mainly done for Blender, it would be never so well intergrated into other software.
As for E-Cycles and other future forks that are in fact a modification of existing engine which every new improvements are incorporated into those forks and someone charged for it - I’m not even mad, it’s not breaking the license. I’m mad because of not delivered promises of sharing and merging improvements into vanilla Cycles, one year after a release as I remember. Most successful and best creators who are earning thanks to Blender - HardOps, Poliigon, BlenderMarkekt, CreativeShrimp and etc. - thanks to their corporate donations - they are more contributing to Cycles and Blender than every line of Cycles paid forks.
Sorry for being harsh but I’m honest.
The Cycles changes were provided as promised, but under the GPL license, rather than the Apache license. That was clearly a fishy move.
What I don’t understand is why you wish for a license change for Cycles because of that? Knowing where and how open source software is being used is difficult. By changing the license, there can also be missed opportunities now or in the future.
3 Likes
It’s used in rhino, there’s a cycles plugin for Cinema 4D, bricklink (now lego) uses it as the eyesight render engine in their design software, freecad uses cycles in for their rendering, cycles is doing just fine standalone under apache2, and it is certainly not just a blender exclusive. I don’t see why breaking all of that just because you’re mad at single 3rd party would be a good thing for everyone involved.
5 Likes
Not sure about the other two, but there are plans for a Substance plugin in the works for Blender.
3 Likes
I wouldn’t know about that since I’m not a e-cycles customer. I was only addressing the specific quoted statement from you.
1 Like