Hi, Be careful to not name this 'commercial addons'. It's fully GPL compliant scripts, that just connect to paid services online. Or to special hardware or so.
-Ton- -------------------------------------------------------- Ton Roosendaal - t...@blender.org - www.blender.org Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands On 8 Aug, 2013, at 16:03, Patrick Shirkey wrote: > I get the impression that the "commercial" addons will be promoted as such > and maybe also have a "special" highlighted section in the addons list > and/or the web archive? (Tastefully done of course) > > A way for companies to say "We actively support Blender *and* we sell > services around it too because it is a viable commercial platform for our > business model". Still Open Source Software but with a view towards > commercial interests. > > IMO, it fits well with the Blender Network model. Commercial Artists using > open source software. Why not have commercial addons too? > > > -- > Patrick Shirkey > Boost Hardware Ltd > > > On Thu, August 8, 2013 11:00 pm, Bastien Montagne wrote: >> I find it pretty sensible to ask a company that sells products and makes >> benefits from it to contribute to Blender fund, if they want to use >> Blender as a kind of support/communication tool (even though banners & >> co would not be allowed). >> >> Adding their addon into Blender release may attract new users to >> Blender, but it will first of all attract new potential clients for >> those companies! >> >> This has nothing to see with addons that are simply adding features to >> Blender, and which will (mostly) never give any (financial) benefits to >> their coders. >> >> On 08/08/2013 14:50, Angus Hollands wrote: >>> 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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bf-committers mailing list >> Bf-committers@blender.org >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >> > > > -- > Patrick Shirkey > Boost Hardware Ltd > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers