GPL license discussion & Blender Forks (E-Cycles or any other fork)

But I think Blender is under GPLv2 or higher (as the GPLv2 states), that is not the same as GPLv3?

1 Like

1 Like

Interesting

the license page on blender states’ > License details

The source code we develop at blender.org is default being licensed as [GNU GPL Version 2 or later]

Yet the source code at github states

Blender as a whole is licensed under the GNU Public License, Version 3. Individual files may have a different, but compatible license.

and again the license page on blender makes it more complicated by stating

That (GPLv3) is also the license to use for any distribution of Blender binaries.

I am rather sure it is actually GPLv2+. One cant re-license GPLv2 code under the GPLv3 without all authors agreeing. GPLv3 is incompatible with v2, see http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Compatible_licenses#GPLv3-compatible_licenses

I think this is an error.

1 Like

No, it’s not a mistake, I remember when the GPLv3 was included, it was not so long ago, 2.80 maybe, I’m not sure, I think the newer code was licensed under GPLv3 or something like that, but currently Blender is GPLv3 for sure.

Keep in mind that the website is informative, the license is the one that goes with the code and the binary, so the Blender page is outdated probable.

@brecht, @dfelinto, @Ton or @LazyDodo, on of them may be able to confirm us this point.

1 Like

I don’t get to make license decisions for blender, nor can/want I speak for the blender project as a whole, as I pointed out quite a few times, whatever I shared are my personal views.

3 Likes

Most of Blender’s own source code is still GPLv2 or later. However, the Blender builds from blender.org are distributed under GPLv3.

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.

17 Likes

Thanks a lot for this explanation @julianeisel !

I really think we have golden information in this thread that, even if it’s just a purely informative, should be in a wiki or something like that. :slight_smile:

5 Likes

First - thanks @JuanGea for asking the FSF and providing the detailed answer. :slight_smile:

There is one thing I wondered after all this discussion. And this is an open question, not directed at Juan (simply tagged him to say thanks). So while the information from the FSF was pretty much aligned with how I had understood the GPL previously this did bring up a new question:

If a user is whoever received a copy of the software to work with it. And if furthermore that user has not only the right to receive the source code but do whatever they want with the software this brings up a question for internal company usage.

Now this is a hypothetical question that emerged in my mind when I read that for example Tangent Animation Studio might be using their own modified version of Blender internally. So I was wondering - there are other pieces of software where a company might even be using more sensitive own tech than in Blender.

The scene: I am aware that a company is fully able to use and modify GPL software for internal usage. The company is not required to release, advertise or make public the source code of the software if they use it only behind closed doors. As long as the modified software isn’t released to anyone they don’t need to provide Binaries or sources.
The problem: What does this mean for the individual employee of the company, though? They are working with the software. So they would basically as soon as they work with it be entitled to see the source code as well as redistribute it however they see fit, legally speaking. Wouldn’t they?
Is the company seen as an entitiy in that case or does it break down to the individual person within?

1 Like

@SpookyDoom I think it’s a great question.

But keep in mind that the dutys and rights of the GPL comes into play as soon as the software has been distributed publicly, but the FSF and the GPL recognise that an internal company distribution has NOT been made public, hence the GPL terms don’t come into play, so the answer would be that no, the company has rights to keep the software as private and internally they can apply the terms they want to.

GPL comes when it has been made public, either by selling and distributing it by any means, or by distributing it for free, but using inside a company is not making it Public, so the GPL don’t affects this situation.

The key thing here is “public” :slight_smile:

P.S.: thanks for your thanks hahaha you are welcome :slight_smile: maybe you didn’t want me to answer this, if that’s the case tell me and I’ll delete the answer and allow others to expose their point of views without interfeering, I said a lot of things here already :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Ah - that’s good to keep in mind for the future. Thanks.

Also, I absolutely want you to answer. I just want to make sure that people don’t think I need the answer from you exclusively :smiley:

2 Likes

Keep in mind that I’m not a GPL expert or anything, I just contacted the FSF to clarify some points, they are easy to contact fro this type of inquiries, just email them and they will straight forward answer you :slight_smile:

The things you said so far and the answers you got from the FSF match pretty much with what I have gathered about the GPL over the years. So I assume your opinion to be highly likely to be at least in the correct ballpark. :wink:

Should this ever become a real issue I’d consult legal advice anyways. Or I’d probably be working for people who do it themlseves. :smiley:

1 Like

AFAIK, E-Cycles doesn’t bundle its source code but is this *written offer" provided ?

1 Like

I have no idea, could be good if you ask about this to the author.

Bundling is not necessary, just some way to download the source code would be sufficient.

It has previously been mentioned that the source code is available on the Blender Market. I would be surprised if this wasn’t the case on Gumroad. At the very least, I don’t see a reason for this sort of speculation.

1 Like

What has been stated is the Blender Market has the source not that it’s being offered to customers, also, do you know that for a fact? There is nothing wrong in asking and wanting to know if everything is right and if the license is being respected, specially now that some things got clarified

1 Like

It should be clear from my message that I don’t know it for a fact.

The only reason why I responded is because from my point of view, it is not just a question. Just asking a question would be: Does someone know how they provide the source code? The way it was described appears potentially loaded in my opinion.

I just had checked eCycles on the Blender Market. I cannot find the source code in the files and I cannot find the written offer. But it could be mistaken since there are many download files and I am not certain where to look for the written offer. I will ask the author.

1 Like

Thank you for checking. I am sure it’s just an omission.

I have just asked Mathieu on the E-Cycles thread.

Things just got clarified, so probably this was a missunderstanding of the GPL, and Mathieu will need some time to adjust things to comply with the GPL requirements.

@xan2622 I saw your question in Blender Artists and I want to punctualize one thing:

We should always have in mind two situations:

1.- The source code is packed or provided together with the binary, so you download the zip file form the fork and it includes the source, or you download the zip file from the fork and you also have a second zip with the source available.
In that case only the persons that have direct access to the binary have access to the source code, and if they share the binary with anyone, they are responsibles of giving the binary together with the source code.
That’s usually uncomfortable because at each release you will ahve to pack and upload the whole source code again and again, so the most comfy way of sharing the source code is the second one:

2.- You provide a written offer on how to get the source code, for example you explain that the source code is available on github.
In this case since the original receiver don’t have the source code directly provided together with the binary, what that receiver has is a written offer with the explanation, and when that user (A) shares the binary with another user (B), he must provide B with the written offer.
Then B, without being a customer of D (developer) can go to D and ask for the source code or download it as explained in the written offer.

So the source code is not only available to customers of D, but to any binary user, that can be a customer of D or not, and depending on how the binary was distributed the responsibility of providing such source code relies on D or A :slight_smile:

4 Likes