Re: [Bf-committers] Blender on the Mac App Store
I might be wrong, but as I understood it the problem is that the GPL requires the distributor to also provide the source of the application. In the case of the App Store Apple is the distributor. But they have never thought that anyone would like to distribute source code through their system and I think they think it's not the right place for the source anyway. I wonder why it should not be enough to provide a link to the source in the description? After all the binary in the App Store would be the same as on blender.org (binary compare would match), so one can be sure it wasn't tampered with (if you really want to test that). But I haven't read the GPL or the App Store license. That's all just what I take from all the news articles about this incident. -panzi On 07/21/2011 06:01 PM, jonathan d p ferguson wrote: hi. As far as I know, the GPL is *incompatible* with the terms of the Apple App Store. VLC was pulled because the GPL is incompatible with Apple's terms [1]. It is Apple who needs to liberalize their terms, not the FOSS developers. We must all respect the terms of the GPL, and encourage Apple to be more liberal with their terms. Given that Apple's Lion Operating System will be deployed through the App Store only, and given that Lion includes a substantial amount of GPL software, perhaps these changes are already afoot. Perhaps not. Thanks. have a day.yad jdpf [1] http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/01/vlc-for-ios-vanishes-2-months-after-eruption-of-gpl-dispute.ars On Jul 21, 2011, at 11:26 AM, Shaul Kedem wrote: Hi, As I understood, the VLC incident was because of the original authors of VLC not wanting their software to be in the App store, apple just followed the original copyright holder's request. As for the license, we need a lawyer for that :) On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Sergey I. Sharybing.ula...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Personally, I don't think it's a good idea. App Store isn't compatible with GPL license. Even more, it was accident with VLC already -- Apple simply removed this application from App Store due to license incompatibility. Markus Kasten wrote: Hello everyone. what about putting blender on the App Store (the one for Mac applications of course, not for iOS)? Blender could reach a lot more popularity. Markus K. ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Blender on the Mac App Store
On 07/21/2011 10:48 PM, Alexandr Kuznetsov wrote: I don't understand the purpose of Mac App Store. You can simply download .zip from the web and drag it on desktop. What can be simpler? You could basically say the same about your favourite Linuxs package manager. Although I do not know if the App Store really provides all the features of a full blown package manager. I use Linux. On the other hand you need to get in iOS App Store to be on iPhone. There absolutely no reason why we must or want to be in Mac App Store. Mac App Store probably inherited long and tedieous review proccess. And even if Blender can pass it, there will be literally weeks of delay before updates. Look at Ubuntu Software Center. Blender is 2.49 there. Yeah, probably it would only be for publicity and would have no real use for blender users. -panzi ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Blender on the Mac App Store
On 07/22/2011 12:54 AM, J. wrote: From the Mac App Store Terms and conditions: Programs that don’t comply with Apple’s Human Interface Guidelines will not be accepted. Blender uses its own HIG. From the Adium Mailing list: In the current agreement for the App Store - on all platforms - there are several provisions which restrict distribution. These are incompatible with the GPL. If we were to submit Adium to the App Store, any contributor - which includes contributors to underlying libraries like libpurple, libglib, or libintl - could (1) sue us directly and (2) activate the deauthorization provision in the GPL to remove our right to use the code, both because we would have knowingly violated the GPL. This was checked with Karen Sandler, which is their legal representative. These are the 2 main reasons Blender can't use the Mac App Store. Of course the Blender Foundation can ask Apple but is a well known fact that Apple dislike the GPL, and i know at least that the ffmpeg/libav guys are pretty willing to fight anyone that uses their code in any way that breaks the GPL/LGPL part of their licensed code. Can of worms, anyone? Regards. J. I don't understand: If Apple is seen as the distributor it would be Apple that violates the GPL, because it does not provide any source. If not, then the source is not needed to be in the App Store but just somehow reachable (link to blender.org) and there would be no violation at all. Anyway, yes, it seems to be not worth the trouble at all. -panzi ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Blender on the Mac App Store
They use at least bash, wget and gcc. Lets tell GNU so they can sue them! :) I've got another idea (then I stop spamming here): Would it comply to App Store rules if one would write a native OS X application (conforming to HIG and BSD licensed) that is a Blender Downloader or Blender Installer or Blender Manager. This would not include blender, but would download and install blender. It would also provide a menu with options like put blender into dock and associate .blend files with blender etc. Maybe it could let you manage multiple blender installation. E.g. blender 2.49, blender 2.5x and a list of the latest GraphicAll builds. If I would use OS X I would write such a software just to see whether Apple rejects it. -panzi On 07/22/2011 03:19 AM, Shaul Kedem wrote: So OSX uses no GPL software? none? On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Alex Fraseradfr...@vpac.org wrote: - Original Message - On 07/22/2011 12:54 AM, J. wrote: [...] From the Adium Mailing list: In the current agreement for the App Store - on all platforms - there are several provisions which restrict distribution. These are incompatible with the GPL. Right. The problem, as I understand it, is that section 6 of the GPLv2 states You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein, but the App Store imposes further restrictions. See: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement Cheers, Alex ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Windows 2000 build please.
On 07/17/2011 12:43 AM, Michael Fox wrote: On 15/07/11 11:16, Blankfirstname Blanklastname wrote: I'm saddened that a lot of work is done for Blender to work on BSD, Linux, MAC and XP but in the process you developers left us Windows 2000 users out in the cold. we cannot help it that we cannot build for win2k. Blender's internals are not compatible with the win2k system There is NOTHING WRONG with Windows 2000 and conceivably there's not anything you can't do on XP that can't be done on Windows 2000. You Couldn't be furthur from the truth, comparing win2k and XP is like comparing apples and oranges, they are vastly different internally, win2k is 16bit OS winXP in 32Bit, with different calls to different systems, may seem the same on the surface but underneith where we work, is 2 different worlds. Hence support for win2k was dropped Are you sure you don't confuse Win2k with Win9x/Me? After all Win2k is NT based and the direct predecessor of XP. (2k = Win NT 5.0, XP = Win NT 5.1) Blender is suppose to be open and free and with this one snafu, Blender is no longer open and free. yes blender is still free and open, but the doesn’t mean we are obliged to cater for everyone, the source is available, you are more then welcome to get your own builds going, and there is a whole community that could lend a hand I nor others can run a 2.58 build on our systems because of this upgrade. Please build a Windows 2000 Optimized 32 bit. Thanks. No we will not. we will not be abused or insulted to be you or any one's slaves we are people, volunteers, thank your lucky stars and be grateful that blender even exists ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Let us switch to git, pretty please
As long time bf-committers reader who has committed one or two tiny patches in the past I like to add: Pros for HG: More intuitive to use, especially things like revert. Nicely extensible using Python (e.g. generic keyring integration for repo passwords). TortoiseHg TortoiseGit and cross platform (Qt based). Pros for GIT: The SVN bridge seems to be much faster and transfers less data than HGs SVN bridge (last time I tried). Some people like this staging thing much. Never used it. It is said that a repo with many very different branches is smaller in GIT. github/gitourios bitbucket (but bitbucket is ok) Many things are possible in both, but the defaults differ. E.g. in HG you have to enable several extensions (that are included, just not enabled) to get things like paging+colors on the shell, rebase, squash (which isn't called like that in HG, I think) etc. But then in HG there is a built in webserver (`hg serve`) that supports pushes (if enabled)! It can also be hooked as CGI script with about two lines of Python code. But currently HG only supports Python 2.x. (I somehow like HG better.) -panzi On 05/27/2011 05:29 AM, Sergey I. Sharybin wrote: Hi, I'm not sure switching the whole repo to git is a nice idea. Last time i've checked this it was very painful to work with libs/ repo cloned with git -- simple `git status` used to work ages. Maybe this is because of plenty of binary files, not sure. And size of that local cloned repo was also incredible big -- several gigabutes, iirc. Git for codebase works really nice when you've got plenty of branches -- no pain with all this re-branching and so. Simple `git rebase` and here we go. There's also advantage for releases -- tagging happens much nicer with git. It'll be also more useful for pre-realse periods while codebase is frozen -- developers could still commit features to the development branch, but they wouldn't go to master. About clients i could say that git on linux works nice, msysgit works fine for windows. There's also TortoiseGIT. I haven't used it much, but it worked also nice. But i have to admit, that some firends of mine had some occasional troubles with it. P.S. as one more disadvantage, we'll be unable to have that rnumber in splash screen. It could be short commit SHA, but not sure it'll be useful. Tom M wrote: It was discussed a bit yesterday on irc as Jason was updating his sculpt branch to head that it would haven been much less pain with GIT potentially. Brecht and Ideasman and other core maintainers what are your views on moving to git or mercury? Ultimately the decision will be up to Ton of course, but would be good to get a straw poll on sentiment for it. LetterRip ___ 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
[Bf-committers] Where did YoFrankie.org go?
I wanted to download the latest source of YoFrankie in order to have a look at the movement control (maybe when I've time and it's not to complicated I'll change frankies movement control to a Jump-and-Run control so the game is actually playable). But http://www.yofrankie.org/ is just the same as http://www.blender.org/. Where can I get the source? Where is the project page of YoFrankie hosted? -panzi ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Are ffmpeg, xvidcore, libmp3lame and x264 permanently removed from blender?
On 02/19/2010 11:08 AM, Dave Plater wrote: I maintain blender for openSUSE where these packages aren't allowed, I'm happy that they are no longer there because the pre_checkin.sh and the script it calls to remove the offending directories are no longer needed. I just needed confirmation that no prohibited formats are included so I can change the spec file and remove the scripts for good, I also have to mention it in the change log. ATM blender-2.50 is only in my home project but I am building svn snapshots to ensure there aren't build issues when it's released. Do you think that there will be a stable 2.50 by the end of May in time to make it into openSUSE 11.3? Regards Dave P Quoting blender.org: Betas 2, 3 and 4 will add additional UI features, alongside further tool development, leading up to a fully stabilised and production ready Blender 2.6 release in mid 2010. http://www.blender.org/development/release-logs/blender-250/ AFAIK there will no stable 2.50, because this is a development version of blender (like Linux 2.3). But the blender developers said they want to have 2.60 (which will be the next stable release) at the next SIGGRAPH (which is somewhen in the summer). -panzi ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
