I was just a kid in 2002, so couldn’t contribute, but I remember checking the MoneyMeter going up every day, so that the community could buy out Blender and make it free software. GPL does restrict it, but it’s also only the only reason Blender is not a long forgotten piece of software from the 90s.
replyWell.. Old discussion but I actually think it's the better way (sorry. MIT, you are more free then anything).
Either contribute back or stay away from open source work that others did for you.
replyCan you even copyright LLM output? Even the readme points out humans didn't make any of the code.
replyMy understanding is that the LLM stripped away the non-UI code from Blender. The majority of the code is ported directly from GPL'd code from the Blender code base.
replyIn this case you just can't spin it any other way than it being a derivative work of Blender. And this is great.
replyMost software is not GPL. When comparing this to alternatives like EGUI and GPUI for building a new app, this cannot be considered, while the others can.
replyGPL makes sense for applications like Blender. For a general purpose library, it's a dealbreaker.
This is not the spirit of open source.
replyIs it bui's author decision or a consequence of Blender itself being GPL?
replyin what way?
replyThree things one must never ask: a woman her weight, a man his salary, and an HN commenter what “use case” the GPL ruined for them.
replyIn this case LGPL would be a more expected license for UI libraries, at least.
replyBut that wouldn't work for a straight derivative of a GPL project.