Blender shader-based halftone CMYK offset printing emulation process (opens in new tab)

Although the discussion around Blender add-ons and the GPL is interesting, this isn't an add-on and doesn't apply. It's a .blend scene, thus isn't bound by the GPL since it's an output from Blender. This is ultimately the equivalent of any other exported artwork, like a 3D model.

Below is the relevant part from that page:

> What you create with Blender is your sole property. All your artwork – images or movie files – including the .blend files and other data files Blender can write, is free for you to use as you like.

It is not settled that add-ons have to be GPL. The add-ons are python programs that do not contain or link against Blender code. Instead, they are called by Blender itself (and can call Blender python APIs). It's not much different from a Linux userspace program, for example.

There are reasonable arguments either way. For example, is an add-on for an electronics device that directly interfaces with the motherboard considered a derivative work? How about an accessory for some kind of tool? Like a plug in, they are useless without the original device, but does that make them derivative works that need permission to be distributed? We'd argue not for copyright of the designs of physical goods, so why would it be different for software?

There are clearly arguments either way and this isn't a settled matter.

It's likely the case that the author doesn't understand that they can't encumber their users under the terms of the license granted to them.

> Sharing or selling Blender add-ons (Python scripts)

> 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. You are free to sell such scripts, but the sales then is restricted to the download service itself. Your customers will receive the script under the same license (GPL), with the same free conditions as everyone has for Blender.

No, worst case it just means you won't be able to redistribute blender + that addon.

Gnu Emacs is GPL.

Many Emacs plugins are not.

In the context of game assets, usually distribute in this sense means provide for download for other game devs to use, rather than include it in a published game. Generally speaking, asset artists are happy for you to modify their assets for use in your game (and often, it's necessary for game engine compatability or efficiency)

Yup. If the author doesn't show examples with motion, it is pretty safe to say that it won't look well for animations. This most often does not come for free.

It's unenforceable (the author even admits this) but a tonne of game asset artists have had their work stolen and resold as NFTs, and so a lot of them have started including this clause just to make it clear because when the NFT scammers disappear with the cash, the buyers often end up contacting the original artist (and more often than not, start making demands and threats)

Sometimes there are higher principles than free software.

That's one freedom I'm happy to see restricted. Let the lame NFT people find some other gimmick for their 1 millionth monkey-based ugly JPEG project.

What?

"This CMYK print emulation is free but the creator accepts your support by letting you pay what you think is fair for the CMYK print emulation."