Since add-ons have been widespread coming from hundreds
of authors and different location, it would be nice to communicate
how they are licensed. I think for 2.8 we should add a license to the
What do other people think?
- Blender it's self has different licenses for different components,
as long as it's GPL compatible users should not have to worry.
I rather we keep this policy for add-ons too.
- the source code should have a license in the source code header.
- the addons need to be GPL compatible so many will be redundant.
- on the flip side, if there are complications with the license
(addons which include data files for example),
it's more likely to become a license paragraph.
How about this policy:
If add-ons include data-files or assets which aren't CC-0 (public
domain), this must be stated in the add-on's description.
I rather make the default being not to add noise into the interface
and encourage add-on authors not to complicate matters for our users.
Since the add-ons must be GPL compatible I don't think we need to
include this in the metadata, developers can include this in the
description if they really want.
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Aaron Carlisle <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Since add-ons have been widespread coming from hundreds
> of authors and different location, it would be nice to communicate
> how they are licensed. I think for 2.8 we should add a license to the
> What do other people think?
> Aaron Carlisle
> Project administrator for the Blender 3D Documentation Project
> Email: [hidden email] > Website: https://blendify.github.io > _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> [hidden email] > https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers