> Blenders licensing is a deterrent. Very few people want to deal with GPL.
I see this claim taken seriously all over the place, and I just don't get it. How in the world is the GPL actually an issue?
The GPL does not apply to anything made with Blender; only changes made to Blender. You can very trivially use Blender without ever dealing with the GPL.
Do studios really think they need to make changes/extensions to Blender itself, then keep those changes totally private and proprietary? How absurd!
I just can't for the life of me think of a scenario where the GPL would actually inconvenience a studio. The only potential problems I can imagine are beaurocratic FUD like having a legal team arbitrarily demand every tiny piece of work be owned by the studio. What a silly reason not to use better tools.
I see this claim taken seriously all over the place, and I just don't get it. How in the world is the GPL actually an issue?
The GPL does not apply to anything made with Blender; only changes made to Blender. You can very trivially use Blender without ever dealing with the GPL.
Do studios really think they need to make changes/extensions to Blender itself, then keep those changes totally private and proprietary? How absurd!
I just can't for the life of me think of a scenario where the GPL would actually inconvenience a studio. The only potential problems I can imagine are beaurocratic FUD like having a legal team arbitrarily demand every tiny piece of work be owned by the studio. What a silly reason not to use better tools.