Yes, I don’t have anything against that, but it’s something everyone should know when dealing with GPL software, and if someone wants to share e-cycles in their studio, they should get access to the source code, just for safety reasons.
Yeah but this is absurd. Nobody would sue you for that. This is about protecting open source not about being a nice dad.
I never said it did? I said if you plan to distribute it pays to have your ducks in a row.
When we are talking about licensing and contracts, every little detail matters, and you don’t know who can sue you for weird reasons… it’s sad, but it’s true.
And in any case, this is a matter of understanding the license 
1 Like
True, then we agree
The GPL actually does treat an organization as one entity. I’m typing this on a phone while carrying a baby, forgive me for not citing sources, but as long as it’s strictly within the organization (no contractors), you’re not distributing under the interpretation of the FSF.
So your studio could build and use a Blender for Maya plug-in, but would not be allowed to distribute it to any outsiders.
1 Like
Ok, and with a freelance friend? or some non-intern artist?
Those, as I’m reading it, are not part of your organization.
But don’t take my word for it. Read the GPL and the GPL FAQ
1 Like
But the case constructed here is mainly about publishing/forwarding paid software that is released under the GPL / in an GPL ecosystem.
And that leads to the question if a person is legally/morally allowed to ask for a payment if she invests a large amount of work into eg an addon. Well the GPL allows that and I am personally fine with that. Its certainly easier not to charge anything if you are backed by a development fund. And its also true that open source projects are pushed forward quite much by enthusiastic people who are willing to contribute something for free, thats a great part of open source and gpl code but not the only possible way.
This is one way to finance development for open source. As much as its respected that people are earning money by using blender i find it has to be respected that people ask for a payment on the development side as long as the rules of the GPL are respected.
But the case constructed here is mainly about publishing/forwaring paid software that is released under the GPL / in an GPL ecosystem.
No, the paid part is what we are trying to discard when we try to explain user =/= customer, it could be any fork of Blender that does not have it’s source code publicly available.
And I think no one is questioning if GPL software can be sold or not, it’s pretty clear to all of us that it can be sold.
Regarding the legally / morally, legally is what we try to treat hear, the morality of something is not being discussed here, and it’s something that belongs to everyone personal way of thinking, and that’s were the freedom lies 
Let’s say I am publishing Bladder 3.0, obviously based on Blender . I only make the binaries available to my customers, but they also get access to the source code (6. d) in the GPL 3 license). In this particular case my customers are also my users. For me, they are identical and I don’t have to differentiate at all (as far as I can see).
The thing is that I believe that both aspects have to be seen in combination. And just looking at what you can do legally while ignoring the other is nothing I support. What I summed up under morally here is that if we start undermining paid addons here, then this option to finance it will perhaps fade in the long run and that hurts blenders ecosystem IMO. If you just share code within your family there is defacto no risk at all. Its very questionable if this is publishing in the narrower sense.
Yes, and what if I, that I’m a user and a customer, gives that version to a colleague that is a freelance?
That person is a user, but not a customer…
… what I understand here is that I have to have access to the source code and deliver it to my colleague, right?
What I’m not sure is that that person can also ask you for the source, since it’s not an original software, but a derivative software from another original one that was published publicly and freely.
As I said, morality is something subjective
In a court morality is not on trial, but legality.
II don’t want to see that code personally, which doesn’t mean that I lose the right to do it, simply because I haven’t given you any money.
To clarify things, I will not ask Mathieu for the E-Cycles code, I am not interested in it…
That means that I can’t talk about this?? that I try to clarify what we are entitled to and not entitled to as users, what we are obliged to do as dev?
I believe that this thread will serve that purpose, if we are all constructive in our interpretations and open to changing our minds.
1 Like
As this person is not my customer, I don’t have the obligation to provide the source code. This person is not my user/customer and as such, I am not legally forced to grant that person anything.
You can argue that this person is a user of the software I am distributing, but I literally don’t have to care about it, because that person didn’t get the binaries through my channels.
From my point of view, my customers are my users and I don’t have to care about anyone else regarding the licence requirements.
Edit: It doesn’t matter whether someone is a customer or a user. What matters is whether a person (or entity) got the binaries from me. If that is the case, I have to make sure there are ways for them to get the source code as described in the license.
That is in question because of this:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? (#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic)
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.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program’s users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.
there is talking about “the program”, not the “modified version” of the program as it does before… and the program is Blender, not your modified version.
If you publish/sell on blender market, I ask the source code to the owner of Blender market or to you…
because you are literally not distributing the binaries, they are distributing them.
technically speaking…
The question is, have you passed your source code to them in case someone who buys the software asks them to provide it because they are the distributors of your binary code?
I don’t care about the FAQ and the semantical games which can be played with it. I specifically make Bladder 3.0 available as described under 6. d) . When it comes to details, there is no way around the actual license. Now, as I am not a lawyer, I could certainly be wrong or miss exceptions from other parts of the license text.
That’s why I sent an email to the FSF
2 Likes