[nkallen]

I will say I’m constantly bewildered by which license to choose. I’m using copyleft to defend myself a bit. But weak copyleft because I’ve hate that the gpl prevents blender plug-ins from being closed source or linking against something closed source. Plasticity will allow plug-ins to do whatever they want, that’s the goal.

There is some possibility I will switch to MIT since philosophically I’m more in that camp

[jcelerier]

> I’m using copyleft to defend myself a bit. But weak copyleft because I’ve hate that the gpl prevents blender plug-ins from being closed source or linking against something closed source

So you're ok with using copyleft to defend yourself, but not ok with others to use copyleft to defend themselves ? This is bewildering

[esteth]

Their stance seems reasonable to me. They seem happy for works to be GPL, but frustrated that it means plugins or extensions or things which are not the core work themselves are then hampered.

[fsloth]

That is a take that I do not understand. How is not allowing closed source plug-ins in Blender defending anyone?

It simply means a percentage of those developers who would have been happy to create third party tools simply now don't.

See for example the thriving plug-in ecosystem SketchUp has.

A third party should be able to create plug-ins without risking their IP - closed source, and any license they like.

This model has been the cornerstone of CAD innovation for the past decades.

True freedom means that you let dowstream users do as they please, not that you lock them in in specific delivery module.

[Etheryte]

As a very tangential side note, behavior like this is fairy common, and a good reminder human being are not rational actors. People drive like asshats when they're in a hurry, but are very upset when someone else drives that way. Rather than bewildering, I would call it human nature. What is rare though, is being very honest about it.

[nkallen]

Yes that is correct. I am not ok with others.

Edit: Jesus do you really not recognize sarcasm? People are free to use whatever license they want and I’m free to explain why I choose lgpl over gpl

[ushakov]

[edit: misunderstanding]

[nkallen]

Please correct me if I’m wrong but I was not under that impression

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5419923/can-gpl-be-re-li...

I thought I am the copyright owner and I can offer my code under as many licenses as I want. Many people dual license gpl code is my understanding. Converting my own code to mit should be allowed right?

Every Google result I’ve found says I’m the copyright owner and I can offer as many licenses as I want. Are you just trolling?

[ginko]

>GPL means the code belongs to the public and you cannot copyright it

That's incorrect. The author still retains the copyright and is free to relicense their work any way they want.