is dead, long live!

GPL 2 vs. 3 does not matter for me, we do however link against GPL3 through third-party so the binaries are technically GPL3.

Also, since this project can’t change the license we should prefer ffmpeg/libraw gpl3 and remove gpl2+lgpl. Something to consider for a future release.

What components are gpl3? We explicitly build a gpl2 version of ffmpeg. Gpl3 components should be removed or distributed separately

I was mixing up GPL3 and LGPL3 on a couple of components, my bad.

Restored topic from

Why change Natron licence to GPL V2?

rcspam 2015-08-28 11:09:20.184167

In this commit, Natron is now under GPL V2.
Can you explain your motivation ? Why change from Mozilla to GPL ?

MrKepzie 2015-08-28 12:05:13.590312

The main reasoning is that in the future there will be derivative work spun off Natron, and we want to be able to still control where our source code is going and who is selling it.

GPL will enable us to have a commercial version of Natron that will be identical to the open-source version, but with support.

If we were to keep the MPL, there are some features that unfortunately we would have to refrain from implementing without disrupting:

A) An open-source version equal to the commercial version.
B) Good relationship with the developers in the eco-system (other companies making money off plug-ins).

Matthieu, as for the studios you mention, they can still make customisation of the software via Python (that’s what most studios do) since loading Python scripts in a GPL software does not make them GPL. If they want to make a complete derivative work of the source code, they would have then either to:

A) Make it GPL so everyone can benefit of it
B) Buy to us a commercial license where we allow them to do so

Choice B) is what most studios will use anyway because they are not going to use a product without having complete support on it.

All this licensing scheme is in the hope to sustain the quality of the open-source product we give, while still receiving funds from other sources. Unfortunately we are not going to be funded by the French government forever.

What Blender cannot do compared to us is selling their software as a commercial license (with support etc…), because they have over 300 contributors, making it impossible to have everyone agree on selling their intellectual property.
In our cases, the number of people owning the software is small and known making it pretty easy for us to re-license the software as we wish.

Hope this clarifies the reasoning. If you’ve got any question I’ll be glad to answer.


colorgrade13 2015-08-28 20:32:18.625042

Okay!! I think I understand. So blender has a HueCorrect node. Under GPL, will you be able to use that nodes code without having to do it from scratch? Or, am I way off base here.

bfuze 2015-09-02 05:55:10.888737

So, do you plan to sell a license of Natron? Just like fusion or nuke someday? I hope you guys don't change your mind and begin to limit the set of tools in the open source version. I really love your product I think is going to be an amazing tool at the level of nuke or higher

Azerupi 2015-09-02 10:08:40.166572

I think the plan is not to have multiple versions but to have an optional fee for support. Mainly to be able to continue full-time quality development. Also optional paid support gives studios a certain guarantee that Natron is not going to disappear overnight, which is probably a big deal when you base your whole workflow on a tool.

The goal is to be able to fund Natron's development in the future. ( @MrKepzie, correct me if I am wrong )

MrKepzie 2015-09-02 10:18:30.870699

Azerupi is right, we do not plan to sell licenses the same way BMD or The Foundry do with Fusion/Nuke, but instead sell support licenses (mainly for studios). The terms of this license are not yet written and will not be available right away after v2 is shipped. The GPL version will stay up to date and you will still be able to use it as you are used to.

Zabander 2015-09-02 14:06:34.917174

Thank you guys, now it is clear ![smile|20x20](upload://ekmVltdGtYDJToLXJI2T5krFX4c.png ":smile:")

manuel_songokuh 2015-09-02 18:11:35.337905


i think, it's possible:
natron will be founder like ask Blender foundation, and natron foundation will does to call artists for create short movie used 100% of NATRON so will be open movie like the big bunny, natron foundation can to earn moneys for developers and site server and spot and will be stand in siggraphic show..

see example from blender philosophy:

this is possible for natron future: office, pays new developers and shop dvd tutorial, training natron..
this is not bad.. so natron can alive for ever and free forever (because there is earn from shop: dvd, projects like orange, mango, gooseberry..)

mrkepzie: i think this is good for you, your life future stable..
i do for think ok?

And the commit regarding GPL2 has several comments with info:

Thanks a lot @rodlie!
I updated the Wikipedia page to point here.

edit For the record, I think that MrKepzie’s assertion that “loading Python scripts in a GPL software does not make them GPL” is wrong as soon as the Python scripts imports Natron’s module. Similarily, it has been established that Blender’s python add-ons must be GPL because they do import bpy and the bpy module (Blender’s) is GPL.

I have issue cannot insert WriteNode. Any recomendation to fix this issue? This error like image below. Pleashe help me! Screenshot_2019-08-12_11-31-29|502x139