I'm having an interesting (to me, at least) conversation on the Vpaint forum about Inkscape and Vpaint, and the question of open source/GPL came up. (The idea is to make Vpaint proprietary BTW).
Boris, the Vpaint developer, states that

most animation studios wouldn't take the risk to touch a GPL code, as, depending how it's done, it could legally bind them to make their proprietary in-house software available to the world under the GPL.

I have no idea how animation studios think and work so this may be true, but is this fear in any way founded? AFAIK, anyone can use eg. Inkscape for anything and do with the result whatever they please, no? I couldn't imagine a company being legally binded to make proprietary software available under GPL just because they made a logo in Inkscape and incorporated it in the rest of their work/creations? Or how does this work? Is this fear he describes more like paranoia, or is it founded?
I know it all depends on the specific GPL license in question, but let's take Inkscape as an example...

I think he might be talking about any code or software based on the GPL licensed sofware, rather than images generated using the GPL licensed software.

I don't undestand licensing very well, at all. But he could be right about using code, for example from Inkscape, in a proprietary program.

I was wondering why no one was getting as excited as I was getting, about the announcement about Vpaint. I must have missed the part where they intended it to be proprietary. I guess if it was intended to be open source, there would have been more interest.

Yes, this is the whole concept of open source programming -- the sharing of code, files, libraries, and even technology, with each other. Proprietary programs don't (or at least rarely) share with other projects (as far as I understand).

But I think you might be confusing using images from Inkscape, with using part of Inkscape's code (theoretically) in Vpaint.

Just because Inkscape uses a GPL license doesn't mean every image that anyone might draw with Inkscape must also have an open license. I usually copyright (to myself) the few images I ever finish with Inkscape. But I've also made a few available with an open license, which other people can use for learning (or as they like). I think some people are confused about that, sometimes.

brynn wrote:I must have missed the part where they intended it to be proprietary.

You didn't miss it, it was never mentioned (at least not where I saw it). It's when I asked about integrating Inkscape and Vpaint (on the Vpaint forum) that the monkey came out of the sleeve (as we say in Dutch). Kind of disappointing, but it's his good right of course.

brynn wrote:But I think you might be confusing using images from Inkscape, with using part of Inkscape's code (theoretically) in Vpaint.

Just because Inkscape uses a GPL license doesn't mean every image that anyone might draw with Inkscape must also have an open license. I usually copyright (to myself) the few images I ever finish with Inkscape. But I've also made a few available with an open license, which other people can use for learning (or as they like). I think some people are confused about that, sometimes.

Exactly.

" the monkey came out of the sleeve (as we say in Dutch)"

In the U.S. we say "the cat's out of the bag". I've never heard of anyone who knows where the saying comes from. Except that if anyone ever did put a cat in a bag, when it got out, it probably would be a lot harder to get it back in.

Well I wonder if that point is somehow known by the industry "insiders". It really did not get any attention on the Inkscape developer mailing list. And I would have thought it would.

In my humble opinion it is not a relevant reason avoiding using a gpl code. Like, they would crack a proprietary source just to build their own in-house software?
Or they are waiting for someone producing a public domain, or even better, a cc0 licence? Would that ever happen?

Instead, why they don't search a way of crowdfunding?


In inkscape terms, ponyscape could not be proprietary code I guess.

Lazur URH wrote:Instead, why they don't search a way of crowdfunding?

Maybe he's open to discussion on the Vpaint forum? Anyway, even crowdfunding is not the same as proprietary code, no? It's a one-off payment, while proprietary code can (theoretically) generate money in many other ways. Or, more probably, not serve anyone...
But as long as it's proprietary, I for one am not putting any energy in it...

About crowd funding, maybe the blender foundation is worth a check.

Actually I'm lost in the licenses here... Now it seems that Vpaint is not intended to be proprietary after all (see this post).

dalboris wrote:Err... sorry, but no, not at all. If -the idea- was to make it proprietary, I wouldn't have released it open source in the first place. All I said was that the license was MIT, so it's possible to make a proprietary software based on VPaint, and that I -might- consider doing it one day if it seems the right thing to do. That's entirely different. Open source code cannot become "proprietary".

I'll just retire entirely from license discussions and leave it to more knowledgeable people...

Yeah, the license issues can be pretty confusing! I don't usually get too involved either.