At the company I work for, we are doing a project that requires
customisation of Blender. Traditionally, the client has been heavily
against the idea of free software. But Blender is so good, and the
benefits of being able to modify it are so great that it can't be
ignored. The client is even consi
My 2 cents on the matter is that closed source extensions to blender,
in order to be useful, have to be missing from the free core of
blender. That means that people who write commercial extensions may
end up trying to influence the development of blender
somehow(financially being the obvious way).
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Diego B wrote:
> Please stop the fight on this thread, there is no point to talk about
> LGPL, Maya, the good support or whatever.
>
> Ton already say that the possibility to re-licensing with LGPL is near
> zero, so we need focus on "ways to get end-user level us
On 26/11/2010 11:17 AM, Leo Sutic wrote:
> Seems like you got your solution right there.
>
> Why aren't you just going with Maya?
Perhaps because they find Blender better overall? Perhaps because of the
expense?
Seriously, why is it every time a comparison is made to some other
software we have t
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Diego B wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please stop the fight on this thread, there is no point to talk about
> LGPL, Maya, the good support or whatever.
>
> Ton already say that the possibility to re-licensing with LGPL is near
> zero, so we need focus on "ways to get end-user l
Hi,
Please stop the fight on this thread, there is no point to talk about
LGPL, Maya, the good support or whatever.
Ton already say that the possibility to re-licensing with LGPL is near
zero, so we need focus on "ways to get end-user level useful
extensions possible."
and this mean no more talk
On 2010-11-26 00:40, Lorenzo Pierfederici wrote:
> Maya is in a way a very open software: stable APIs for plugins,
> lots of documentation and examples, good support. You can build amazing
> stuff around it
Seems like you got your solution right there.
Why aren't you just going with Maya?
/LS
__
looks like many of you, when talking about proprietary software, see this
scenario:
"an evil super-big corporation (we'll use a fake name for it: Autodesk, or
Microsoft) steal or abuse Blender, and get away with it. They make lots of
money they don't deserve, our beloved developers get pissed, our
2010/11/25 José Romero :
>
> Blender is a tool for artists, not programmers.
>
I hate to break the news to you.
It is because of programmers that Blender exists.
___
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers@blender.org
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/
El Thu, 25 Nov 2010 12:39:17 -0800
Alex Combas escribió:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Campbell Barton
> wrote:
> > Hi, All things considered I'm apathetic towards LGPL switch.
> >
> > Its still quite restrictive, and I'm not aware of any commercial
> > extensions for blender so far, even th
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Campbell Barton wrote:
> Hi, All things considered I'm apathetic towards LGPL switch.
>
> Its still quite restrictive, and I'm not aware of any commercial
> extensions for blender so far, even though its possible to write them
> without changing to LGPL.
>
>
> May
Hi, All things considered I'm apathetic towards LGPL switch.
Its still quite restrictive, and I'm not aware of any commercial
extensions for blender so far, even though its possible to write them
without changing to LGPL.
May I point out that existing blender developers are not pushing for
this,
Developing/improving on any code which some other company may be using for
making money doesn't make sense, because then you are probably helping
improve their program, for which they get more users and more money, which
in turn reduces our users & money, thus hampering even our speed of
developmen
Hi,
first of all, right at the beginning of this mail, I also vote against LGPL!
When I joined the Blender SVN team in May 2009 I did it because I like
Blender a lot, it's a great program and I use it myself as a hobby.
Lots of freelance developers like me do that in their free time, after
schoo
> @Knapp
>
> There are a billion closed source applications in this world, and yet
> you are not starving.
> Neither will you be starving if there is one more closed source
> application in the world.
I should know by now not to joke in internationally read emails. :-)
Before I, "grew up", and mo
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Damir Prebeg wrote:
>>
>> I don't think *anyone* is suggesting that the Blender code "end up in
>> some closed source software". We're looking at making Blender capable
>> (legally) of using third-party distributed closed-source plugins. This
>> is about *extendin
>
> I don't think *anyone* is suggesting that the Blender code "end up in
> some closed source software". We're looking at making Blender capable
> (legally) of using third-party distributed closed-source plugins. This
> is about *extending* Blender, not taking parts of it and making them
> proprie
On 25/11/2010 6:19 PM, Alex Combas wrote:
> I think a lot of people are agreeable to the idea of closed source
> plugins for Blender.
I think you'd be right ;)
> But there is really no way to do that with the GPL ...unless you try
> to break the GPL somehow by using shims or some other sort of lo
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Benjamin Tolputt
wrote:
>
>
> This I agree with too. LGPL will allow, if only through careful
> extraction of code into a shared library, the extraction of code from
> the Blender project into closed source projects. Personally, even though
> I am for the capabili
On 25/11/2010 5:30 PM, Damir Prebeg wrote:
> This debate is going nowhere.
I think parts of it are moving forward. There are some people that don't
want the debate at all and some that are taking rejection of their ideas
as a complete rejection of the concept of proprietary plugins. I don't
think
This debate is going nowhere. I get an impression that some people simply
can't accept the fact that a lots of developers are working on Blender code
exactly because GPL license ensures them that their hard work will not end
up in some closed source software. And I don't think that they are all
sta
On 25/11/2010 10:09 AM, Martin Poirier wrote:
> I thought Ton was clear enough the first time, but apparently not, so let me
> reiterate:
>
> -
>
> Based on feedback from key developers, the likelyhood there's a
> relicense to LGPL happing is near zero. Let's focus on ways to get end-
> user
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Martin Poirier wrote:
> I thought Ton was clear enough the first time, but apparently not, so let me
> reiterate:
>
> -
>
> Based on feedback from key developers, the likelyhood there's a
> relicense to LGPL happing is near zero. Let's focus on ways to get end
El Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:28:03 -0600
Christopher Allan Webber escribió:
> There's been a lot of discussion on here about "how could we move to a
> point where we weaken the copyleft Blender has?"
>
> I would just like to put in that not everyone hopes this will
> happen... I do not hope it will hap
> I can understand people would be upset if the programmer had modified
> Blender but he did NOT modify Blender at all, he simply used Blender
> in a similar way that an artist would use Blender to create artwork.
The programmer is free to use IPC for that purpose.
I thought Ton was clear enough the first time, but apparently not, so let me
reiterate:
-
Based on feedback from key developers, the likelyhood there's a
relicense to LGPL happing is near zero. Let's focus on ways to get end-
user level useful extensions possible.
-
Alex, please drop
You seem to be co-mingling your free (gratis) and free (libre).
Dan
___
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers@blender.org
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
if you distribute an LGPL application you MUST provide the source code
if you modify and distribute an LGPL application you MUST provide the
source code.
It is NO different than the GPL in this regard.
The only difference is that if a separate program links to an LGPL
program then the
separate p
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Alex Combas wrote:
> But I'm disappointed, as far as freedom goes no one would even notice
> the difference between GPL and LGPL except for people who want to earn
> a living writing software.
>
> LGPL is the best of both worlds.
Yeah, well, other than the people
On 25/11/2010 7:17 a.m., Ton Roosendaal wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> Based on feedback from key developers, the likelyhood there's a
> relicense to LGPL happing is near zero. Let's focus on ways to get end-
> user level useful extensions possible.
Is there a way to have closed source extensions work with
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Alex Combas wrote:
> Ton I think you know full well the potential which is being thrown away.
> So if you feel we should not pursue this, then I will agree with you.
>
> But I'm disappointed, as far as freedom goes no one would even notice
> the difference bet
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Alex Combas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Ton Roosendaal wrote:
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> Based on feedback from key developers, the likelyhood there's a
>> relicense to LGPL happing is near zero. Let's focus on ways to get end-
>> user level useful extension
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Ton Roosendaal wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> Based on feedback from key developers, the likelyhood there's a
> relicense to LGPL happing is near zero. Let's focus on ways to get end-
> user level useful extensions possible.
>
> -Ton-
>
Ton I think you know full well the
Hi Alex,
Based on feedback from key developers, the likelyhood there's a
relicense to LGPL happing is near zero. Let's focus on ways to get end-
user level useful extensions possible.
-Ton-
Ton Roosendaal Blender Founda
There's been a lot of discussion on here about "how could we move to a
point where we weaken the copyleft Blender has?"
I would just like to put in that not everyone hopes this will
happen... I do not hope it will happen. I personally think the lack of
a copyright assignment within Blender, and u
Hello,
GPL it is, and GPL it will be. Switching to v3 would be possible to
some point anything else is completely out of discussion imho. Also in
practical terms, it's not really possible to switch to LGPL,... in
such a huge project I bet there will be at least 20-30 contributors,
who would really
Hello,
I have a couple of things to say :)
1)
If I was you, I would start a wiki page where to collect the results of
all these discussions: right now I have the impression that this will go
nowhere if you keep discussing just here.
Maybe there's a better chance to get to a proper document.
2
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Alex Combas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Campbell Barton
> wrote:
>>
>> Look at the simplest case for a LGPL switch:
>> if all blender developers and all contributors agree to switch to LGPL.
>>
>> We still have libraries that are GPL, these cant
A lot of the discussion has centered around integrating Blender in a
production system based on proprietary software. I'd like to bring up
the following two points:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary
sy
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Campbell Barton wrote:
>
> Look at the simplest case for a LGPL switch:
> if all blender developers and all contributors agree to switch to LGPL.
>
> We still have libraries that are GPL, these cant just be made into
> extensions, they need to be replaced or remo
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Alex Combas wrote:
> Hello developers,
>
> A common statement I've heard people make when talking about the
> possibility of a license change is: "Its a good idea, but in practical
> terms it is almost impossible".
>
> I do not think that is true. Here is my propo
Hello developers,
A common statement I've heard people make when talking about the
possibility of a license change is: "Its a good idea, but in practical
terms it is almost impossible".
I do not think that is true. Here is my proposal for how it could be done:
~~~
1. Wait until Blender gets out
42 matches
Mail list logo