CGArtPython
commented
6 months ago This is NOT legal advice. This is just my understanding.
I have developed an extension and want to release it under the MIT licence.
Anything that uses Blender's Python API should be under GNU GPL.
Based on the license on blender.org https://www.blender.org/about/license/
Based on this opensource stackexchange question, parts of the project may be licensed under MIT
However, you can still license parts of your project under MIT, you just need to make sure the MIT and GPL sections are clearly separated. ref: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/1641
In the case of this VSCode extension, they are clearly separated.
To really be sure that you did everything correctly you can do what ADOBE is doing.
If you want parts of your code to be under MIT it should be in a separate app/tool/project.
You would then write a "bridge" that your GPL extension would talk to.
From my understanding this is what the Substance Materials Add-on for Blender is doing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXUe1aqWxjw
As you know the Substance Tools are not under GPL or OpenSource.
And again I underline that this is NOT legal advice. Just an opinion.
Hey! First of all, thanks for the application, you can't imagine how it has made my life easier :)
So I have developed an extension and want to release it under the MIT licence. The problem is that the
__init__.py(pythonFiles/templates/addons/with_auto_load/__init__.py) that I added to my code comes with this comment saying that it is licensed under GNU GPL v3.My understanding is that if any part of your code is licensed under GPL v3, then you cannot license the whole project with MIT, right? But then this repo should also be licensed under GPL instead of MIT, right? So is this comment just a template for me to change depending on my license, or is it really under GNU GPL v3?