Hi, Just an initial note; I'm using the batched summary, so I apologise if I've missed something, or am reiterating someone else's opinion.
With regards to these plans, I struggle to identify how a "commercial" add-on is different from a "community" developed add-on. Unless there are plans to add an interface that provide some additional functionality to the commercial developer, I don't think this is the way to go. The reason being is this; it looks to me as though we're selectively charging developers to use a subset of an open source project that non commercial developers have access to. I'm aware that there are scrutinous policies to ensure that we don't let substandard works into trunk, so in that respect the commercial add-on is treated no differently. It reminds me of a recent experience, in which people with employment that was connoted to be well paid were targeted as part of a fundraiser. If we are to introduce a fee to support development, that should be enforced upon all contributors, not just those from commercial origin. How do we determine when someone is commercial etc; it seems to be to be rather invasive. I am fully in support of supporting the development fund; no matter the cause, financial incentives are effective, but I'm not sure that I would personally agree with using it in this manner. Indeed, apply points one, two and three to all developers, but not necessarily number four. Regards, Angus Hollands (agoose77) _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers