Factors determining binary archivability

[Joshua Root]

On 2020-9-9 16:49 , Joshua Root wrote:
> On 2020-9-9 15:37 , Jason Liu wrote:
>> By the way, Blender Foundation itself, as well as most Linux distros,
>> don't seem to have an issue distributing Blender (or other software
>> apps, for that matter) as a pre-compiled binary package. Why does the
>> MacPorts project seem to be so hung up on this licensing conflict? No
>> one else seems to care. (I hope I don't insult anyone by asking that.
>> I'm genuinely curious.)
> 
> You'd have to ask those other people for their reasoning. Maybe the
> Blender Foundation's packages don't include or require openssl. Or maybe
> they and distros think the system library exception applies.

I had a look at the blender.org binary and it appears to be shipping a
full python installation with the _hashlib and _ssl modules statically
linked with openssl. Using those from the included GPL'd python scripts
seems at least potentially problematic to me. But then I'm not an
expert, so it would probably be best to get an opinion from
<licensing at fsf.org> as well as the Blender Foundation's take.

The main executable only links with system frameworks plus libomp,
libiconv, libz and libbz2, so if the port is the same, that part of it
is fine.

- Josh