Kaelis' Models

[kaelisebonrai]

the gpl, however, does not require the binary release include the .blend in the same package, merely that the source be in some way shape or form supplied...

[D'Lanor]

Which is still impossible with ULM. It only accepts Uru file types.

[Trylon]

Note: Not trying to convince you, just making my point clear

My main problem (and likely that of others) with the GPL is the viral clause, forcing all projects that include (static link) the GPL'ed object to use the GPL themselves. It is that requirement that I find unreasonable, especially in the context of age writing.
Age writers are primarily creative people (artists), and quite a number of them are not familiar with software style licenses, or that using GPL objects requires you to GPL your age too, and provide the blend files.
It's not a bad thing to provide the blend files, but it's something that everyone should have the freedom to decide for themselves if, how and why they provide their .blend files.

On top of that it's a bit impractical to be forced to provide the blend files at all times, with our current setups.

Important:
While I think it's everyone's personal choice to decide which license to provide objects under, I do think that in the case of the GPL it should be made explicitly clear: You cannot use the models without putting your age under GPL too, which includes making the blend file available.
This is because as stated above, many age writers do not know what using a GPL'ed object implies.

Note:
In the context of computersoftware I can understand the idea behind the viral clause (in the historical and philosophical context of the FSF).
But I do think that it restricts freedom, instead of ensuring it. (Yes, I disagree on that point with the designers of the GPL, though I understand their POV)
And for my own projects I prefer the LGPL, or simpler licenses.

[kaelisebonrai]

Which is still impossible with ULM. It only accepts Uru file types.

Where is it required that the .blend be packaged in the ULM? All it would require is a note, say, in the description, of where to download the .blend.

@Trylon: See, that's where I disagree, the viral clause is what causes me to license my models under the GPL. And I'm of the believe it ensures not restricts the freedom. That said, they do have the chpice of if how and why.. but, that said, if they use the models, then, indeed, they have made that choice already.

[Trylon]

@Trylon: See, that's where I disagree, the viral clause is what causes me to license my models under the GPL. And I'm of the believe it ensures not restricts the freedom. That said, they do have the chpice of if how and why.. but, that said, if they use the models, then, indeed, they have made that choice already.

Fine, no problem - freedom is a tricky thing, meaning different things to different people.

Just be sure to explicitly explain the viral clause when posting your models.
As I said, quite a bunch of writers are artists with little or no understanding of the GPL. The trend here has been to post models without any explicit license (more like "do whatever you want with it"), so it's easy to assume all models are like that.
It would be a shame if people weren't informed properly before making that choice.