[thomastjeffery]

> They don’t want that.

Again: why? Because they have a grudge against the GPL's anti-DRM?

That's still FUD. There is nothing that a studio would be doing with Blender where they would want to implement DRM.

Sure, they will want DRM to be used in the distribution of the content they make with Blender; but that is totally separate from Blender itself and the GPL. It's not like the film itself will contain a copy of their asset creation or rendering pipeline!

[random5634]

They don’t want to open source the tools and programs they develop as part of their pipelines that tie into GPl or each other - GPl is viral and a library import triggers it.

In terms of the tivoization / drm provisions - the GPL is viral - it only takes one screw up or chain of viral connection to blow their business up. Apple fought the govt to avoid unlocking a terrorists phone, that’s how hard they protect signing keys .

The issue is they don’t know who will use what where, and the viral aspect adds insane risk. Minecraft / roblox and other games may decide to add design pipelines or render chains. Or they may want to run the software on golden image VDI pools that are locked down.

Even Ubuntu was so worried about the chain risk they changed bootloader license away from latest GPl

[thomastjeffery]

> In terms of the tivoization / drm provisions - the GPL is viral - it only takes one screw up or chain of viral connection to blow their business up.

Did I not just finish explaining how that is not true?

The GPL is only "viral" to software that it is licensed with, and extensions to that share meaningful data structures with that software.

The GPL does not cover content created by GPL licensed software.

> The issue is they don’t know who will use what where, and the viral aspect adds insane risk.

Except it's trivial to understand the "viral" aspect of the GPL. It's clearly explained in many places. Therefore, there is no risk at all.

> Minecraft / roblox and other games

Games? We're talking about motion picture and television studios. Then again, plenty of game devs use Blender in their asset creation pipeline without getting the GPL involved in their codebase.

> Or they may want to run the software on golden image VDI pools that are locked down.

So? What does that have to do with anything?

> Even Ubuntu was so worried about the chain risk they changed bootloader license away from latest GPl

I don't know anything about that, but I sincerely doubt the context for that decision is in any way similar there...

All I'm seeing here is FUD. Not one of your examples actually brought up a reason - outside irrational fear - to avoid using Blender to make movies.

[random5634]

Dude - let me make this super simple. These rendering pipelines import the SDKs and APIs they connect with. The pipelines have tons have high value custom code. Under the GPL, they have to be open sourced if they use blender - this is 101 stuff. And under GPL it is viral, if stage 1 is now forced open, the next big set of stuff that integrates with stage 1 is also forced open and so on.

Pixar is not open sourcing their pipeline - period. Do you not understand that these companies build giant and high value software around the various engines?

Listen - I didn't realize how little you understood. This is actually covered in the Blender FAQ's because it can really bite you (even if a small player) if you build an add-on to blender.

"Blender’s Python API is an integral part of the software, used to define the user interface or develop tools for example. The GNU GPL license therefore requires that such scripts (if published) are being shared under a GPL compatible license."

This is cool if you want to use stuff - they make that clear too. "Sharing Blender or Blender add-ons or scripts is always OK and not considered piracy." But for commercial players this is an absolute no go.

This is not FUD, this is hard reality, and no commercial player is going to tie into something like this.