Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blender Is Free Software

code.blender.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 335 posts

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#11

Post by chrisseaton »

Jonnax wrote: post #4

Can someone provide some context for this post? Are there calls to change Blender's license? Are add-on developers violating GPL? The post mentions that a bridge between open source and proprietary needs to be open source but the add-on itself doesn't? Is it just a "how dare you sell products closed source products on top of blender?" The business model of providing support is all well and good but it's just one. If…

If you post a long statement like this article and the first response from people is "I don't know what they're talking about or referencing" then you know you've written it very badly.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#12

Post by lruor »

opencl wrote: post #9
Jonnax wrote: post #4

Can someone provide some context for this post? Are there calls to change Blender's license? Are add-on developers violating GPL? The post mentions that a bridge between open source and proprietary needs to be open source but the add-on itself doesn't? Is it just a "how dare you sell products closed source products on top of blender?" The business model of providing support is all well and good but it's just one. If…

Somebody recently launched a new site "Blender Depot" which hosts a bunch of Blender add-ons and provides a batch install feature. Some of the add-ons on this site are commercial plugins available for sale by their authors. All Blender plugins have to be GPL so this sort of redistribution is legal but some of these authors have been rather upset about it. So a large argument ensued on the Blender forums about the GPL…

So the classic case of "I chose GPL because everybody chooses GPL because it's the most used licence but I forgot to read what it actually says and I'm upset"

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#13

Post by delhanty »

Jonnax wrote: post #4

Can someone provide some context for this post? Are there calls to change Blender's license? Are add-on developers violating GPL? The post mentions that a bridge between open source and proprietary needs to be open source but the add-on itself doesn't? Is it just a "how dare you sell products closed source products on top of blender?" The business model of providing support is all well and good but it's just one. If…

>The post mentions that a bridge between open source and proprietary needs to be open source but the add-on itself doesn't?

The post isn't very clear, but they way I interpret it is that the Blender add-ons do have to comply with the GPL.

Furthermore, I don't think that's new. Look at the answer in January 2017 to this question [0] on Blender Stackexchange by Jaroslav Jerryno Novotny:

>Blender also includes the Blender Python API, so every piece of code of the addon that uses some Blender Python API must be also licensed under GNU. This only applies to the addon script files or binaries.

Later on, it's clear that compatibility with closed source programs is restricted to sharing files - that is linking is not allowed:

>But you can do something like commercial render engines do: the export plugin is GNU (uses Blender API) and converts scene data to commercial application (ie. renderer) which is not GNU (doesn't use Blender API) and the licenses differ. This works because the addon is not dependent on the non-GNU application.

[0] https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/72095/license-is...

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#14

Post by Jedd »

starbugs wrote: post #7

From the article: "And if you think you ‘suffer from piracy’ or find it hard to do business with Free Software? Just distinguish yourselves with the proven successful free/open source business model: provide docs, training, content, frequent updates and support. Your customers will love you!" Well, then why does Blender need a development fund? [0] I honestly agree with most of what this article says and I admire the…

> I honestly agree with most of what this article says and I admire the spirit of open source development and the GPL.

If you don't admire the spirit of free software as well / instead, then you may have missed the point of the article.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#15

Post by [deleted] »

chrisseaton wrote: post #11
Jonnax wrote: post #4

Can someone provide some context for this post? Are there calls to change Blender's license? Are add-on developers violating GPL? The post mentions that a bridge between open source and proprietary needs to be open source but the add-on itself doesn't? Is it just a "how dare you sell products closed source products on top of blender?" The business model of providing support is all well and good but it's just one. If…

If you post a long statement like this article and the first response from people is "I don't know what they're talking about or referencing" then you know you've written it very badly.

[deleted]

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#16

Post by jononor »

starbugs wrote: post #7

From the article: "And if you think you ‘suffer from piracy’ or find it hard to do business with Free Software? Just distinguish yourselves with the proven successful free/open source business model: provide docs, training, content, frequent updates and support. Your customers will love you!" Well, then why does Blender need a development fund? [0] I honestly agree with most of what this article says and I admire the…

Why? People want to donate. Would be silly not to take their money and use it to improve the project even more. I would argue that donations is a key part of this style of FOSS business model.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#17

Post by watwut »

lruor wrote: post #12
opencl wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somebody recently launched a new site "Blender Depot" which hosts a bunch of Blender add-ons and provides a batch install feature. Some of the add-ons on this site are commercial plugins available for sale by their authors. All Blender plugins have to be GPL so this sort of redistribution is legal but some of these authors have been rather upset about it. So a large argument ensued on the Blender forums about the GPL…

So the classic case of "I chose GPL because everybody chooses GPL because it's the most used licence but I forgot to read what it actually says and I'm upset"

I suspect not so much I forgot to read then "I hope nobody is gonna use parts of license I don't like, oh shit" e.g. wanting it both ways.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#18

Post by neilv »

I try to say libre software rather than Free Software, and I wish the FSF would back the libre term fully.

When RMS is giving a speech, he has an opportunity to expound on what's now wordplay about "free software", to a captive audience that's perhaps already receptive or prepared to listen.

But low-level grassroots advocacy opportunities often happen in contexts in which people are talking for some other purpose, and if you only say "free software", and they don't already know what you mean, you're actually working against your goal. People who don't know what "free software" means naturally assume you mean software for which they don't pay money. If you instead say "libre software", it's not misleading, and if they don't know, and they care, they can ask you about it, or look it up.

(I suspect it would've been better to fully embrace the "libre" term before an office suite was branded that. Now we have a new potential source of confusion, such as "Yes, I already tried Libre, but liked Office better". But I still usually feel more effective saying "libre software" than "free software". And, in practice, I end up saying "open source" perhaps the majority of the time, even when I'm thinking libre specifically, because "open source" is more established than "libre", perhaps because the FSF keeps saying "free".)

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#19

Post by village-idiot »

jsty wrote: post #3
lruor wrote: post #2

I don't understand the point of this post. It's full of fluff. Is he arguing that people should open source the add-ons they create for Blender?

He explicitly says so in the comments section: "Blender add-ons (Python scripts using the Blender API) have to be GPL license compatible. You pay for the service to download it, not for the software. Never feel bad about harming any GPL developer by sharing her/his code. Sharing is an act of love!"

Paraphrasing from another comment, you know that the post is unclear when you have to explain it in the comments section.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#20

Post by starbugs »

jononor wrote: post #16
starbugs wrote: post #7

From the article: "And if you think you ‘suffer from piracy’ or find it hard to do business with Free Software? Just distinguish yourselves with the proven successful free/open source business model: provide docs, training, content, frequent updates and support. Your customers will love you!" Well, then why does Blender need a development fund? [0] I honestly agree with most of what this article says and I admire the…

Why? People want to donate. Would be silly not to take their money and use it to improve the project even more. I would argue that donations is a key part of this style of FOSS business model.

Then the article should maybe add this to the list of how plugin developers are supposed to fund their operations to support Blender.
Post reply on HN