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

Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 109 posts

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#41

Post by esteth »

jcelerier wrote: post #30
nkallen wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will say I’m constantly bewildered by which license to choose. I’m using copyleft to defend myself a bit. But weak copyleft because I’ve hate that the gpl prevents blender plug-ins from being closed source or linking against something closed source. Plasticity will allow plug-ins to do whatever they want, that’s the goal. There is some possibility I will switch to MIT since philosophically I’m more in that camp

> I’m using copyleft to defend myself a bit. But weak copyleft because I’ve hate that the gpl prevents blender plug-ins from being closed source or linking against something closed source So you're ok with using copyleft to defend yourself, but not ok with others to use copyleft to defend themselves ? This is bewildering

Their stance seems reasonable to me. They seem happy for works to be GPL, but frustrated that it means plugins or extensions or things which are not the core work themselves are then hampered.

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#42

Post by Jarmsy »

eps wrote: post #6

There's also MagicaCSG [1] , from the same person who made MagicaVoxel [2]. [1] http://ephtracy.github.io/index.html?page=magicacsg [2] http://ephtracy.github.io/index.html?page=mv_main

MagicaCSG is cool but implicit modelling is a world away from a NURBS tool like this.

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#43

Post by Etheryte »

jcelerier wrote: post #30
nkallen wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will say I’m constantly bewildered by which license to choose. I’m using copyleft to defend myself a bit. But weak copyleft because I’ve hate that the gpl prevents blender plug-ins from being closed source or linking against something closed source. Plasticity will allow plug-ins to do whatever they want, that’s the goal. There is some possibility I will switch to MIT since philosophically I’m more in that camp

> I’m using copyleft to defend myself a bit. But weak copyleft because I’ve hate that the gpl prevents blender plug-ins from being closed source or linking against something closed source So you're ok with using copyleft to defend yourself, but not ok with others to use copyleft to defend themselves ? This is bewildering

As a very tangential side note, behavior like this is fairy common, and a good reminder human being are not rational actors. People drive like asshats when they're in a hurry, but are very upset when someone else drives that way. Rather than bewildering, I would call it human nature. What is rare though, is being very honest about it.

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#44

Post by bwda »

Looks interesting, but why opensource if you plan to sell it and are "not okay" with other people benefiting - only you can benefit?

:( Sad for a prospective app I would use in my workflow.

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#45

Post by nkallen »

esteth wrote: post #41
jcelerier wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m using copyleft to defend myself a bit. But weak copyleft because I’ve hate that the gpl prevents blender plug-ins from being closed source or linking against something closed source So you're ok with using copyleft to defend yourself, but not ok with others to use copyleft to defend themselves ? This is bewildering

Their stance seems reasonable to me. They seem happy for works to be GPL, but frustrated that it means plugins or extensions or things which are not the core work themselves are then hampered.

That’s exactly my take. What exactly constitutes a “derived work” in the gpl (plug-ins do!) is counter intuitive to me.

Even the lgpl definition of “dynamic linking” is something that scares me in the context of npm modules, which is why I’m nervous I made the wrong choice with lgpl

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#46

Post by eurasiantiger »

hirako2000 wrote: post #8
colordrops wrote: post #5

For those of us who are not familiar with the domain, what differentiates this from Blender? Does Blender not support NURBS? If not, why is that the case?

Blender supports NURBS. What differentiates this from Blender? Blender is a full fledged pipeline of tools, not to CAD, extensive modeling tools, texturing, rigged animation, post production, multiple rendering engines. It's like comparing a specific photo editor that say focuses on filters and color adjustments, with Photoshop.

In other words, Blender is the Emacs of the 3D world.

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#47

Post by wakeupcall »

nkallen wrote: post #21
walrus wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It appears to use C3D as its CAD kernel, which is proprietary. You can't build it without a copy of C3D. I'm guessing the source will be available for inspection, but the binary will cost money.

A full build from scratch would require the c3d headers, which I can’t provide. What I am planning is to something like this: divide the app into two pieces, an npm wrapper around the kernel and the electron front end that uses the module. You will need a license key to “activate” the node module. You would then use the electron app or the module directly if you’re a programmer. You will be able to build your own for…

So external contributors can only provide patches without being able to test themselves I suppose.

Is the c3d dev license cheap enough for determined contributors to join? As in, cheaper than a f360 maker license?

I do not mean this in any pejorative sense. As a dev/maker I kept an eye on c3d for a long time, since that seems the only advanced-enough and commercially affordable brep kernel around to get off the ground quickly.

However, there's no discussion the closed nature pretty much bars any sort of in-depth contributor.

At least, contributing to a project like this would be extremely off-putting for me, to the point that besides having the ability to look a bit deeper than usual, I question whether keeping the source open does much.

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#48

Post by Oddskar »

bwda wrote: post #44

Looks interesting, but why opensource if you plan to sell it and are "not okay" with other people benefiting - only you can benefit? :( Sad for a prospective app I would use in my workflow.

If the end price is 25 dollars isn’t that quite an affordable price?

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#49

Post by nkallen »

wakeupcall wrote: post #47
nkallen wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A full build from scratch would require the c3d headers, which I can’t provide. What I am planning is to something like this: divide the app into two pieces, an npm wrapper around the kernel and the electron front end that uses the module. You will need a license key to “activate” the node module. You would then use the electron app or the module directly if you’re a programmer. You will be able to build your own for…

So external contributors can only provide patches without being able to test themselves I suppose. Is the c3d dev license cheap enough for determined contributors to join? As in, cheaper than a f360 maker license? I do not mean this in any pejorative sense. As a dev/maker I kept an eye on c3d for a long time, since that seems the only advanced-enough and commercially affordable brep kernel around to get off the groun…

> So external contributors can only provide patches without being able to test themselves I suppose.

My intention is that if you buy a license for plasticity, you can then build locally and test locally. You can contribute back or not depending on your interest.

Think of it like this. There will be a typescript/javascript wrapper around a limited version of the c3d kernel. this is the plasticity api. You will call plasticity.Enable(license_key) at the top of your program and you will be good to go. You buy a license key from me.

Although I do hope people will contribute the plasticity's development, my main goal with it being open source is that people will write plugins that they can then give away or sell themselves.

I have used commercial software that I pay for -- like Fusion 360 and MoI3d -- where I ran into bugs that I could have fixed for myself if only I had the code. I'm still happy to pay for them. Instead I literally waited 2 years for Fusion to fix a bug I cared about.

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#50

Post by fsloth »

jcelerier wrote: post #30
nkallen wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will say I’m constantly bewildered by which license to choose. I’m using copyleft to defend myself a bit. But weak copyleft because I’ve hate that the gpl prevents blender plug-ins from being closed source or linking against something closed source. Plasticity will allow plug-ins to do whatever they want, that’s the goal. There is some possibility I will switch to MIT since philosophically I’m more in that camp

> I’m using copyleft to defend myself a bit. But weak copyleft because I’ve hate that the gpl prevents blender plug-ins from being closed source or linking against something closed source So you're ok with using copyleft to defend yourself, but not ok with others to use copyleft to defend themselves ? This is bewildering

That is a take that I do not understand. How is not allowing closed source plug-ins in Blender defending anyone?

It simply means a percentage of those developers who would have been happy to create third party tools simply now don't.

See for example the thriving plug-in ecosystem SketchUp has.

A third party should be able to create plug-ins without risking their IP - closed source, and any license they like.

This model has been the cornerstone of CAD innovation for the past decades.

True freedom means that you let dowstream users do as they please, not that you lock them in in specific delivery module.

Post reply on HN