OTOY Forums

@Goldorak, has the plugin to be closed source?
You can sell the plugin during closed beta and after finish the stable version change it to GPL.
I can ask Ton Roosendahl from Blender Foundation but he is on vacation for the next 3 weeks (without Internet ).

Cheer, mib.

Goldorak wrote:Actually, we're very interested in seeing a plug-in for Blender happen. There is nothing we're doing to hold that effort back.

There are two things needed to make this a practical reality:

1) Developer interested in working on this project
2) A way to do this cleanly given the Blender's licence

The latter issue makes the plug-in different from any of the others. It is probably not insurmountable in the end, but it does mean that Blender has to be handled differently than the other plug-ins. This process is not as straightforward as everyone would like it to be from a development perspective, and that is the main reason it hasn't been in the initial wave of plug-ins.

Thanks for the reply! Glad you guys haven't given up on it. I would advertise for a dev in blender forums if you haven't. Also reddit is your friend. Has there been any active search for a dev for this plugin?

I understand you're not doing anything to hinder blender-octane development but if you don't do anything to promote the idea than you're not gonna get a lot of people on board to develop it...

When you'll be searching for a developer, post an official advert in this subforum.

mib2berlin wrote:@Goldorak, has the plugin to be closed source?
You can sell the plugin during closed beta and after finish the stable version change it to GPL.
I can ask Ton Roosendahl from Blender Foundation but he is on vacation for the next 3 weeks (without Internet ).

Cheer, mib.

Are you able to get in touche with anyone else besides Ton?

I made a forum post, maybe that will lead to something.

Are you able to get in touche with anyone else besides Ton?

Yes but the others are "only" developers.
Ton is the best about license stuff, GPL and so forth.

The most important thing is: Must the plugin be Closed Source or not.
As far as I know the Octane SDK is Closed Source but this is not a problem, Blender use Nvidia Cuda and this is Closed Source.

Cheers, mib.
EDIT: Could you post the forum link, please.

http://www.blender.org/forum/viewtopic. ... 636#100636

That's what I posted.
But if you are able to contact devs, that would really be the way to go.
Maybe we can get a conversation going with someone else until Ton get back?

As with the other Octane plug-ins, it would not be open source software.

Goldorak wrote:As with the other Octane plug-ins, it would not be open source software.

Is it possible to clarify with OTOY's legal department regarding the feasibility of having an LGPL wrapper from Blender to connect to either;
- directly to Octane,
or perhaps the LGPL will connect to the plugin (which is closed source), and this plugin will communicate with Octane for rendering then?

Then perhaps we can start mapping out the necessary steps/framework to have a plugin for Blender.

Thanks.

Here's one opinion regarding mixing proprietary code and GPL'ed code;

Need to know exactly where is the line before a plugin for Blender can be developed.

link: http://blog.milkingthegnu.org/2008/04/g ... mmies.html
"CAN I mix and match the following without PROPRIETARY source distribution obligations?

GPL program + PROPRIETARY module or PROPRIETARY program + GPL module
see this part of the GPL FAQ
Bottom line:
NO the combined software must be released under the GPL
YES IF all of the authors (maybe you only if you're the sole author) of the GPL part agree to relicense the program to you under a permissive license like the X/MIT for instance

GPL program + PROPRIETARY plug-in or PROPRIETARY program + GPL plug-in?
see this part of the GPL FAQ and also this one
Bottom line:
YES IF in good faith you think that the 2 codes are not tangled (ideally they run within 2 different processes), that the interface is clean and minimal (no large data structures shared) then you should be ok.
YES IF all of the authors (maybe you only if you're the sole author) of the GPL part agree to relicense the part under a permissive license like the X/MIT for instance

GPL program + PROPRIETARY library?
see this part of the GPL FAQ and the definition of System Library in the GPL.
Bottom line:
YES IF the library is really a system library (in the GPL sense) then you can distribute w/o the source of the PROPRIETARY lib
YES IF the library is not a system library then you must provide an exception to the GPL license (described in the FAQ above) in order to distribute w/o the lib source: this does mean you have gotten the authorization of all of the authors if you need to introduce the exception (works just fine if you're the sole author).
YES IF all of the authors (maybe you only if you're the sole author) of the GPL program agree to relicense the program under a permissive license like the X/MIT for instance

PROPRIETARY program + GPL library?
see this part of the GPL FAQ
Bottom line:
YES IF the Library is a LGPL library (see the LGPL )
YES IF in good faith you think that the codes are not tangled (ideally they run within 2 different processes), that the interface is clean and minimal (no large data structures shared) then you MIGHT be ok.
YES IF all of the authors (maybe you only if you're the sole author) of the GPL library agree to relicense the program under a permissive license (X/MIT for instance) or under the LGPL.

Can I publish my experience of combining GPL and PROPRIETARY software even in the case I'm not allowed to distribute the combined work?
In the US Freedom of speech give you that much but I wouldn't link directly to a GPL download site, just to stay safe. Also if you are part of the authors of the NON-GPL code it's probably a big no-no.
Overall you cannot collude with third-parties so that for instance one would describe (or publish a tool) how to combine, one would distribute the GPL part and the third one would distribute and/or sale the NON-GPL part. (remember: intent is key)

Can I X/MITize or LGPLize by wrapping around a GPL code?
Bottom line:
NO you cannot.
YES IF all of the authors (maybe you only if you're the sole author) of the GPL code agree to relicense the program under X/MIT or LGPL

Is it legal to reverse engineer (GPL) code?
Maybe if you do it properly: consult a lawyer"