[Bf-committers] Buildbot Update - June 24, 2021
Hi all, Buildbot has been updated. https://builder.blender.org/admin/#/builders Notable changes on the Wiki. https://wiki.blender.org/wiki/Infrastructure/BuildBot#Notable_Changes -- James Monteath - ja...@blender.org - www.blender.org Blender DevOps Engineer ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org List details, subscription details or unsubscribe: https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Blender Addons Policy
Hello Ton, >The discussion is going astray; please don't take it personally but look at >this as a way to create an equal playfield for everyone. I'm not taking it personally at all but I really don't understand why I'm not able to get answers to my questions. With all respect to 3dmodelhaven but they have 38 models listed for the last 2 or 3 years and they're constantly referenced to me for reasons I don't understand. Is it possible to receive any answers to the following questions? You asked me to post them here for the open discussion and the benefit of others. 1. What will be the rules/guidelines/requirements for getting an independent addon included in the official Blender build, starting from version 3.0? 2. If the addons "linking to commercial services" won't be included anymore, does this mean that the listed addons: Archipack, Blendkit, Bsurfaces, Autodesk exporters/importers, will be discontinued? 3. Since Blender is a community-supported and financed project, shouldn't there be clear rules and guidelines on how external, commercially driven companies can be included in that process? 4. If "Add-ons linking to commercial web services or add-ons offering a bridge to closed (non-GPL) software, are not contributing to Blender's core mission" why and under which guidelines are the BlenderKit addon (linking directly to a commercial web service) included in Blender? Best wishes, -- Lech Sokolowski chocofur.com On June 22, 2021 at 2:57 PM, Ton Roosendaal via Bf-committers (bf-committers@blender.org) wrote: Hi Lechu, Sorry, I mix up addons. To my knowledge your addon was not in the 'commercial addon' category then. Blenderkit and Sketchab are the only two currently. The discussion is going astray; please don't take it personal but look at this as a way to create an equal playfield for everyone. Sketchfab, for example, offers a half million CC0 models. And there's 3dmodelhaven, they are seriously creating a huge CC0 library as well. I bet there are more. I think we're better off by only defaulting to services that are part of blender.org. On blender.org we do not want to implement our own models repository, so we're not competing or creating unfair advantages for independent websites. (*) Then there's the safety and security issue for Blender. If people download the software and enable add-ons, they should have the same quality backup as for any Blender feature. -Ton- (*) I would only consider to host a massive CC0 asset collection on blender.org if such a public service is being endangered, for example because of something evil like a Content ID for 3d models. -- Ton Roosendaal - t...@blender.org - www.blender.org Chairman Blender Foundation, CEO Blender Institute / Studio Buikslotermeerplein 161, 1025 ET Amsterdam, the Netherlands On 22/06/2021 14:14, Lechu Sokolowski wrote: Hello Ton, /*>We only had your add-on and Sketchfab's add-on listed as "addon linking to commercial services".*/ Each of the addons I've listed has a free and paid version that includes commercial services (either paid features or extra paid assets). My only question on that matter was how to get the Chocofur Model Manager addon into the official Blender build. Our addon is and always was free. We've offered over 300 CC0 assets for the Blender community together with our addon. We do have paid assets to be used with the addon, but the addon can be also used completely standalone with none of the Chocofur 3D models. /*>Add-ons linking to commercial web services or add-ons offering a bridge to closed (non-GPL) software, are not contributing to our core mission and therefore will not be offered on blender.org.*/ Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the BlenderKit addon literally linking to commercial web services directly from Blender? I have nothing against BlenderKit creators nor the addon itself, but I don't understand why it's included in Blender if that's the current policy? /*>The bottom line for an add-on being distributed by Blender or via blender.org is that it should add to Blender's mission - to contribute to the user's freedom to have a free/open-source creation environment.*/ If that is the bottom line, I believe our addon perfectly matches Blender's mission. It is (and always has been) free, it includes over 300 CC0 blender-only assets that are included in Blender Cloud as well. We have a proven track record of over 30.000 people using or at least trying the addon. /*>We have been lax on these practices in the past, flexibility is suitable when you work with people and communities.*/ Since Blender is a community-supported and financed project, shouldn't there be clear rules and guidelines on how external, commercially driven companies can be included in that process? The mentioned lax practices from the past leave too much space for interpretation that some companies may be favored over others. There are two general
Re: [Bf-committers] Blender Addons Policy
Hello Ton, >We only had your add-on and Sketchfab's add-on listed as "addon linking to >commercial services". Each of the addons I've listed has a free and paid version that includes commercial services (either paid features or extra paid assets). My only question on that matter was how to get the Chocofur Model Manager addon into the official Blender build. Our addon is and always was free. We've offered over 300 CC0 assets for the Blender community together with our addon. We do have paid assets to be used with the addon, but the addon can be also used completely standalone with none of the Chocofur 3D models. >Add-ons linking to commercial web services or add-ons offering a bridge to >closed (non-GPL) software, are not contributing to our core mission and >therefore will not be offered on blender.org. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the BlenderKit addon literally linking to commercial web services directly from Blender? I have nothing against BlenderKit creators nor the addon itself, but I don't understand why it's included in Blender if that's the current policy? >The bottom line for an add-on being distributed by Blender or via blender.org >is that it should add to Blender's mission - to contribute to the user's >freedom to have a free/open-source creation environment. If that is the bottom line, I believe our addon perfectly matches Blender's mission. It is (and always has been) free, it includes over 300 CC0 blender-only assets that are included in Blender Cloud as well. We have a proven track record of over 30.000 people using or at least trying the addon. >We have been lax on these practices in the past, flexibility is suitable when >you work with people and communities. Since Blender is a community-supported and financed project, shouldn't there be clear rules and guidelines on how external, commercially driven companies can be included in that process? The mentioned lax practices from the past leave too much space for interpretation that some companies may be favored over others. There are two general matters I'm not able to find answered anywhere: 1. What will be the rules/guidelines/requirements for getting an independent addon included in the official Blender build, starting from version 3.0. 2. If the addons "linking to commercial services" won't be included anymore, does this mean that the listed addons: Archipack, Blendkit, Bsurfaces, Autodesk exporters/importers, will be discontinued? Best wishes, -- Lech Sokolowski chocofur.com On June 22, 2021 at 11:27 AM, Ton Roosendaal via Bf-committers (bf-committers@blender.org) wrote: Hi Lechu, 1. Does this mean that Blender 3.0 and all the future versions won't include any commercial addons such as Archipack, Blendkit, Bsurfaces, etc? We only had your add-on and Sketchfab's add-on listed as "addon linking to commercial services". The bottom line for an add-on being distributed by Blender or via blender.org is that it should add to Blender's mission - to contribute to the user's freedom to have a free/open source creation environment. Each add-on will be reviewed equally to be of user benefit and to be GPL compatible. Add-ons linking to commercial webservices or add-ons offering a bridge to closed (non GPL) software, are not contributing to our core mission and therefore will not be offered on blender.org. 2. Will there be any new guidelines to the Community Addons linking directly to the creator's private sites and portfolios? Examples are Oscurant Tools, Amaranth, etc? Or do you need to be signed up for a Diamond Sponsor level just like with the commercial addons? I am not aware of this. No bundled add-on was allowed to use their add-on as advertisement or offer direct linking to websites outside of blender.org. The only possible option is a small credit. Documentation should be on blender.org. If in the course of the past years these guidelines have been slipping away, I will make sure it gets reconfirmed and applied. 3. Does this mean there won't be Community Addons linking directly to commercial applications like Nuke, Autodesk software, Unreal Engine, etc? Not on blender.org. For independent websites (such as BlenderMarket) I will have to find a way to help them to more clearly communicate the Free Software guidelines for offering addons or bundling Blender with products there. We have been lax on these practices in the past, flexibility is suitable when you work with people and communities. However, reality changes. Nowadays we talk to businesses making 100s of thousands of dollars selling Blender addons or forks. It's only fair to remind them that the fair-play rules for Blender also apply to them. Regards, -Ton- -- Ton Roosendaal - t...@blender.org - www.blender.org Chairman Blender Foundation, CEO Blender Institute / Studio Buikslotermeerplein 161, 1025 ET Amsterdam, the Netherlands On 18/06/2021 13:14, Lechu
Re: [Bf-committers] Blender 2.93 Released!
@ The core developers considering this repository idea. With this new online add-on repository you are proposing, you have talked about unifying add-on distribution, so I feel I have to ask, are there any plans to allow only add-ons from this repository to run in Blender or any other restriction above and beyond what already exists? ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org List details, subscription details or unsubscribe: https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Bf-committers Digest, Vol 955, Issue 1 (Bundled Addons vs Addon Repositories)
I agree with what you've said here and think it's very well worded. However, I think I should point out that it is somewhat idealized and that the reality is slightly different. > * Without needing anything explained, users intuitively understand that > a bundled addon has been tested for compatibility, reviewed for > security, and included for its functionality. After their initial review, add-ons are left almost entirely to their own devices, and to my knowledge, there is no regular inspection to ensure that add-ons remain secure and do not fall prey to security bugs. > * Bundling addons bring the best addon developers and core developers > closer together. They will communicate together more leading up to a new > Blender release, since both desire to the addon to work great out of the > box As mentioned above, add-ons mostly just do their own thing and there is little communication between the add-on developers and core developers. As to them both desiring the add-on to work great out of the box, in reality, this is not necessarily the case. For example, there was a bug that affected my add-on that was identified and fixed in master just before one of the releases, but that fix was not ported to the release branch and by that time I was unable to work around it, so my add-on was released broken. https://developer.blender.org/T67577 On 2021-06-21 06:00 AM, bf-committers-requ...@blender.org wrote: Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2021 15:58:10 -0400 From: blender.mail...@creativegraphicsolutions.biz To: bf-committers@blender.org Subject: Re: [Bf-committers] Bf-committers Digest, Vol 955, Issue 1 (Bundled Addons vs Addon Repositories) Message-ID: <7d18a443-ccb7-bb11-dc6a-b29fef42c...@creativegraphicsolutions.biz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Hello Everyone, I've been following the discussion on Bundled Addons vs Repositories. I agree with Ryan Inch and the sentiment that bundled add-ons are Blender's List of Favorite Add-ons. I think the current bundling of select addons is best for users, blender developers, and addon developers. FOR USERS * Without needing anything explained, users intuitively understand that a bundled addon has been tested for compatibility, reviewed for security, and included for its functionality. * They only have to click a checkbox to activate or disable it. * The user need not concern themselves with looking up reviews for usefulness or compatibility. * As for newbie's, they already have enough to think about just learning Blender. A tutorial that says "go to the addons panel and click this checkbox" is as simple as you can get. FOR BLENDER DEVELOPERS * The informal way of bundling the most well crafted addons allows core developers to focus on making Blender useful. * It encourages wider contribution to Blender functionality through addons, which core developers may at some point integrate into the central codebase when it makes sense to do so. * I doesn't burden them with the additional task of maintaining a comprehensive directory, where every addon and update (even those of limited use) must be reviewed for security and compatibility. FOR ADDON DEVELOPERS * Bundling addons bring the best addon developers and core developers closer together. They will communicate together more leading up to a new Blender release, since both desire to the addon to work great out of the box, and more people supporting Blender development is always a good thing. * An Addon developer and core developer might sometimes be the same person. * If the Blender Foundation ever needs to make a plugin themselves, they'll definitely want to bundle it. Regards, Matthew Shockey www.Behance.net/MatthewShockey www.LinkedIn.com/in/Matthew-Shockey www.CreativeGraphic.Biz "Design, Web, and Print" 351 Frank Price Blvd, Clinton TN 37716 Phone 865-963-8409 ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org List details, subscription details or unsubscribe: https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Bf-committers Digest, Vol 956, Issue 1
Hi, thanks for chiming in, you make some interesting points. 1. I don't think that curation will be the biggest hurdle, rather I think security, and the development of the repository and it's integration into Blender, that will require the most work. All add-ons are curated already, must be licensed under the GPL, and I don't think anyone has proposed to allow payed add-ons to be hosted in this new repository (add-ons that link to commercial services seem like they will be disallowed soon, but that's a different thread) 2. This could be very useful. 3. This discussion came about because I felt that the bundled add-on authors, for whatever reason, were being omitted from important places of credit, namely the credits page and release notes on blender.org. In response to my queries Brecht mentioned that they were thinking of moving the bundled add-ons to a separate online repository and that they would then be credited there, in some yet to be determined way. So the two topics are related, moving the bundled add-ons to an online repository will further separate them from Blender, regardless of the benefits this repository may have for non-bundled add-ons. On 2021-06-21 06:00 AM, bf-committers-requ...@blender.org wrote: Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2021 08:34:53 -0700 From: Brian Savery To:bf-committers@blender.org Subject: Re: [Bf-committers] Bf-committers Digest, Vol 956, Issue 1 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Re: add-ons in a repository vs distrubuted with blender. I think there are pros and cons to this but ultimately I think it's an overall good idea. I won't repeat all the points made previously but had a couple more thoughts. 1. The curation of this hypothetical repo and dealing with commercial add-ons or verifying quality or license seems the biggest hurdle to get this done. 2. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned using pypi directly as the add-on repo. I'm not sure that is the right idea but it does bring an interesting point that many addons have to load packages from pip. So maybe as a sidebar if there was a mechanisim to run "pip install Foo" as part of the addon download that would be a nice other benefit. 3. If the biggest complaint here from addons bundled with blender is that they don't get marketed "enough" in their view with the release of blender, that seems like a completely orthogonal issue to how add-ons are delivered. Brian -- brian.sav...@gmail.com 508-274-8700 ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org List details, subscription details or unsubscribe: https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Bf-committers Digest, Vol 953, Issue 1
Yes, I realize a nice UI could be put together in Blender for installing add-ons from an online repository, but my point was that the bundled add-ons come with Blender and don't need to be installed at all. On 2021-06-20 06:00 AM, bf-committers-requ...@blender.org wrote: Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2021 12:44:04 +0200 From: Brecht Van Lommel To: bf-blender developers Cc: Ryan Inch Subject: Re: [Bf-committers] Bf-committers Digest, Vol 953, Issue 1 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 8:13 AM Ryan Inch via Bf-committers < bf-committers@blender.org> wrote: If the bundled add-ons were moved out of Blender and into an online repository each user would have to explicitly search for and download them instead of having them ready to be used out of the box. You can imagine the exact same UI as in the preferences now, but instead it gets the add-ons from an online repository. In practice some things in the UI would change, but installing add-ons does not have to take more steps. ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org List details, subscription details or unsubscribe: https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
