Thats ridiculous. They admited that this plugin contains blender’s code for LSCM and wrote “Source code will be avaliable soon on the website. For now you can request at [email protected]”. I contacted them for providing source code (year ago) two times ad they didn’t even replayed.
Thats completely unfair. Using blender code in plugins for other programs is fine but thats not the case. Lack of information about blender, no info about actual license (this plugin MUST be licensed as GPL if it use/used other GPL code) and violating license resolutions (not providing source code) is plain bad.
Can we do something about that? They don’t respond for emails.
Did you obtain the plugin from them? The GPL does not require the author to provide source code to anyone, it only requires that anyone who obtains a binary (which is not required to be for free) also has access to source code.
Thats completely unfair. Using blender code in plugins for other programs is fine but thats not the case. Lack of information about blender, no info about actual license (this plugin MUST be licensed as GPL if it use/used other GPL code) and violating license resolutions (not providing source code) is plain bad.
To my knowledge, the GPL does not require attribution. So it is perfectly fine to fork, change and redistribute Blender source code without mentioning Blender.
Even if they use GPL code, they don’t have to give you anything, until you get a hold of the binaries. Unless you have binary in your possession, or they release it publicly and you download it, you have zero grounds for asking the source.
Multiple folks above have already stated the legalities correctly. You must have been given the binary to have grounds to demand the code. No binary, no code. Simple as that.
As it seems they request/require payment for the binary - you’ll need to pony up €19.99 to get the binary before demanding (& I assume sharing) said code. It is, all things considered, a similar model to what the Blender Market run by CGCookie.
Just to clarify. I asked them for sources based on their promise on other forum, not because I bought this plugin. Statement about “not providing source code” didn’t apply me and this mails but to person I know who indeed have this plugin. They probably just ignore emails about this things. I assume that “not reading some mails” isn’t illegal, but is it fair?
I didn’t know that they include GPL license in installer. Thats fine, one point for them.
Well, if the person you are talking about aquired the plugin from them and they don’t give him the sources upon his request - that appears both illegal and not cool to me.
Just to clarify, did the mysterious person you talk to got a hold of v2 of the plugin? Or only v1 ?
Also, if the person A has the plugin, but the person B doesn’t, and person B e-mails about getting source code on behalf of person A, person B is still not entitled to get source code as person B doesn’t have the binaries on hands.
Also, what difference does it make to you if you get source right now, and not after IndieGoGo campaign succeeds ? You do understand that if they don’t raise money, they won’t be making the plugin most likely. So it’s not really in their (or anyone’s for that matter) interest to release source before they have the money.
I never understood what some of the pro-FOSS people think when it comes to business
If, indeed, a person they gave the binary too has requested the source code and they have failed to provide it - that is a breach of the GPL that should be remedied. Their statement on the forum though is in no way enforceable. Not terribly smart to claim you’ll do something, not do it, then request crowd-funding… but not illegal.
If this new “third person” you refer to has the binary issue, has requested the source code, and has not received it in reasonable time - they should speak to FSF who I’m sure would be happy to point out the requirements GPL has on distribution. Something tells me they’ll act on that too given the FSF are quite happy to make noise about such things (effectively killing any chance of crowd-funding in the future). As far as you are concerned though, there is no legal issue here. You did not get the binary, you don’t get the source code.
