GPL X Apache? Android and open content

Feedback to the Blender Foundation and the moderators of this website

Moderators: jesterKing, stiv

Lorca
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 12:44 pm
Location: São Paulo, Brasil

GPL X Apache? Android and open content

Postby Lorca » Sat Jul 02, 2011 8:51 pm

So... What's your toughs on this people? What the future holds for open content?

http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html

Blender is GPL and Android is Apache.

Will it blend? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko

It would be really nice to read a word or two from Ton about this.

Yours,

Ortiz

stiv
Posts: 3646
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 7:58 am
Location: 45N 86W

Postby stiv » Sat Jul 02, 2011 9:48 pm

Blender is GPL and Android is Apache.


My first response would be "Yeah, so?" What exactly is the issue here?

Lorca
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 12:44 pm
Location: São Paulo, Brasil

Postby Lorca » Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:01 am

Hi Stiv! Thank you for your quick feedback! :)

I must admit I sounded a bit paranoid with all that "versus" thing, sorry

Just wondering... Trying to start a talk about the business model Blender Foundation set up with the open projects (CC 3.0 + GPL) and BSD/MIT like licenses... We can verify that the Team at Blender Foundation are doing a great effort to promote GPL so I get somehow upset when I read stuff like that:

" LGPL (in simplified terms) requires either: shipping of source to the application; a written offer for source; or linking the LGPL-ed library dynamically and allowing users to manually upgrade or replace the library. Since Android software is typically shipped in the form of a static system image, complying with these requirements ends up restricting OEMs' designs. (For instance, it's difficult for a user to replace a library on read-only flash storage.)

LGPL requires allowance of customer modification and reverse engineering for debugging those modifications. Most device makers do not want to have to be bound by these terms, so to minimize the burden on these companies we minimize usage of LGPL software in userspace.

Historically, LGPL libraries have been the source of a large number of compliance problems for downstream device makers and application developers. Educating engineers on these issues is difficult and slow-going, unfortunately. It's critical to Android's success that it be as easy as possible for device makers to comply with the licenses. Given the difficulties with complying with LGPL in the past, it is most prudent to simply not use LGPL libraries if we can avoid it." (<< quoting the Google team here. Title "Why Apache Software License?" http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html)

I know... I know... They said "LGPL" not "GPL" there. Unfortunately I'm not a lawyer. Sorry to take your time with all of that speculation. ':oops'

At the same time we have this great project going on the "Gamekit" (http://code.google.com/p/gamekit/) that heads at the same direction of Google but, this one by members of our community... :)

So... I'm wondering why Blender didn't take a bsd like licence in the past? Well I guess because that was just a matter of context ;)

Yours,

Ortiz

ldo
Posts: 544
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:30 pm
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand

Postby ldo » Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:33 am

Funny, Android is supposed to be about “avoiding” the GPL, and yet the single biggest part of the Android stack, the Linux kernel, is GPL. And they also use BlueZ for their Bluetooth stack, and that is GPL too.

So much for “avoiding” the GPL, eh?


Return to “Foundation and Websites”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest