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

111–120 of 335 posts

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#111

Post by adfm »

auggierose wrote: post #70
simias wrote: post #62

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.

Exactly this. It’s fitting that the term “full stack developer” came from the same guy that made geek merit badges a thing.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#112

Post by ssalazar »

ademup wrote: post #94
simias wrote: post #62

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…

Oh wow, "full stack" is now not only unfashionable, but considered so ridiculous as to be laughable? "Cloud" I get, it has always been a nonsensical marketing term, but "full stack" at least has honest roots in the term LAMP. I still provision my own Linux (VPS) servers, administer MariaDB on them and string it all together with PHP and sprinkle in non-trivial Javascrpt for UI and graphing. My company is profitable,…

I had assumed “the cloud” comes from the visual shorthand of representing “arbitrary network resources somewhere” as an actual cloud in diagrams of networking systems. I recall this from early 2000s CS curriculum, predating it’s prevalence in industry marketing, though I’m sure it had been common well before then.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#114

Post by javagram »

dharmon wrote: post #64

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"?

That wouldn’t comply with the letter of the GPL.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html

> The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#115

Post by eMSF »

dharmon wrote: post #64

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"?

Quoting GPLv2

>The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.

Worded a bit differently in v3

>The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities.

TL;DR: no

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#116

Post by jcims »

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"

Well, to be fair, I've been there myself. It's an eye opening experience to put it mildly.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#117

Post by kgwxd »

fsloth wrote: post #84
craigsmansion wrote: post #65

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…

Statistically speaking software development is extremely risky from the point of view that n units of work will create x units of deliverables. If you are not a software shop you really would like to outsource those risks. Hence, they pay the capital cost to get a fixed, known deliverable. Developing new software is hard and risky. Sure, if you can get the right team for the job it can work out wonderfully but this j…

If someone wants fixed, known deliverables, the last thing they should be looking at is proprietary software, where a seemingly stable product suddenly updates and everything is different and the license changes retroactively, e.g Photoshop. Version controlled, open source means you can check out any version you might need, at any time, now and forever. Seems worth throwing some money at such a promise.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#118

Post by chrisseaton »

klez wrote: post #37
benj111 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say free software, you have to clarify, 'free as in freedom, not as in beer', libre doesn't have that double meaning.

Libre doesn't have a meaning at all, in English, so you'll have to explain that as well. In other languages that I know there is no such problem because the two meanings of "free" are clearly disambiguated by two different words.

In English 'libre' does mean free, but it means free as in 'free will'. It's not the same meaning as 'libre' in other languages. So it is confusing.

https://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/107929

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#119

Post by forrestthewoods »

zemo wrote: post #96
forrestthewoods wrote: post #72

Wait a second. Shouldn’t it be possible for someone to sell a Blender add-on but it keep it closed source and non-GPL? That’s just writing code for an API. As we all know from Google vs Oracle case it would be disastrous if API’s could be copyrighted. GPL is “just” a copyright license. I’m not sure how Blender add-ons work though.

GPL-licensed projects can't link against non-GPL code. This provision is extended to cover plugins and functional extensions of interpreted environments. That's why a lot of people don't like the GPL. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPlugins https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL

“we believe”

If Google wins their case against Oracle this would _have_ to not be true. Right?

Oh man. I wonder what the fallout of that would be? The internet has long been terrified of Oracle winning. I’ve never been certain the internets proclamations of doom were right.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#120

Post by acaloiar »

fsloth wrote: post #84
craigsmansion wrote: post #65

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…

Statistically speaking software development is extremely risky from the point of view that n units of work will create x units of deliverables. If you are not a software shop you really would like to outsource those risks. Hence, they pay the capital cost to get a fixed, known deliverable. Developing new software is hard and risky. Sure, if you can get the right team for the job it can work out wonderfully but this j…

I agree; software people tend to think about business in terms of software. But if you're a production company then you should focus on your core competency and outsource software development. You generally don't have the in house expertise to manage software projects.

Conversely, if you're a software company and have media production needs, you generally don't in-house it — you focus on your core competency and outsource media production.

Software people tend not to question outsourcing when it's done by a software company outsourcing things outside their core competency.

Post reply on HN