101–110 of 335 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure? It's the opposite in latin.
Gratis as in without any associated cost and fri (free) as in without restrictions is the usage in Swedish as well.
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, a…
Maybe if they'd called it freedom software?
Adopting the term Freedom Software can be done by you, today, at no cost. Everyone will understand what it means.
Messaging matters. Call it Freedom Software :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s risk management - it’s better to pay a bit more for a packaged product and accept it’s drawbacks than hire a developer who may or may never deliver.
I would think the obvious way a corporation could contribute would be financially.
I think the notion that people (and companies) pay for proprietary software because there is support or some other reasons are complete BS. They pay for software because they have to in order to use it. It's just a cost of doing business.
As free software has become viable (high quality) in some areas, business folks are more willing to allow it. The primary concern is "can it do the job". The second is how much will it cost me?
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…
I don't think using an API of a GPL software means your software "has to be" GPL. For example, not all software running on Linux using Linux APIs (syscalls) is GPL.
> NOTE! This copyright does not cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does not fall under the heading of "derived work".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it fascinating that the English language doesn't have a distinction between the social meaning of free and the economic, in that these meanings are meshed into the same word?
Every language has its quirks. French doesn't distinguish between ape and monkey (singe) -- the famous French novel "La Planète des singes" known from the various American movies in the original and remade "Planet of the Apes" series could just as well be translated as "Planet of the Monkeys". Similarly, German doesn't really distinguish between science and other academic subjects -- "Wissenschaft" can mean science,…
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…
I don't think using an API of a GPL software means your software "has to be" GPL. For example, not all software running on Linux using Linux APIs (syscalls) is GPL.
Going by GNU's description of what does and does not extend the GPL requirement[1] and how Blender plugins works, to me at least it seems they very clearly have to be GPL. Unless someone took the route that is common in closed source Linux drivers of having a small open source module that communicates with a binary blob where the majority of the actual interesting code is, but I have not seen any Blender plugins like that.
The Linux kernel actually provides a specific license exemption[2] for the headers that makes software using syscalls not bound by the GPL.
[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLAndPlugins
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.18/process/license-rules....
It's nice a high profile project such as Blender speaks about freedom to push back against the "source available" movement. I've always wondered why niche specific software such as Blender doesn't have a ton of industry backing. Any medium sized graphics shop could have a full developer on the payroll for a fraction of the repeated licensing costs of proprietary solutions, that is, someone who works full time on Blen…
It’s risk management - it’s better to pay a bit more for a packaged product and accept it’s drawbacks than hire a developer who may or may never deliver.
I don't really see the difference between this and "accept its drawbacks", except that if your developer turns out to be productive, you have something a lot more valuable on your hands, and if the developer fails, you can replace them (whereas for a given proprietary product, you typically can not replace the vendor while keeping the licensing agreement and investment in training [this last bit being a big part of why in-house developers make sense for Blender, as they always have for 3D animation studios]).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure how to interpret your reply in the context of what the parent is saying. Of course if it's not common to use the term then people will find it odd, out of place or maybe even pretentious. If some influential people manage to push it, eventually it'll be accepted. If our industry as a whole managed to utter words like "cloud computing", "webscale" or "full stack" with a straight face I really think "libre…
I never uttered "full stack" with a straight face. Actually, in the last interview I had with a CEO where he asked if I was a "full stack developer" I just laughed.
I know people who do that in practice.
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, a…
This is a little dirty, but couldn't they comply with the letter of the GPL and release the code, but none of the build/install scripts? Then only the most motivated users could get it for "free"?
Haven't looked into the blender thing in a while but someone could use the generated C++ API to create an addon and make it difficult to install but who knows if anyone (other than cycles) uses it.