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

141–150 of 335 posts

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#141

Post by module0000 »

cpach wrote: post #92
iamcreasy wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole movie is made by Blender? What was the pitfall? Is there any dev blog I can read?

Here’s some info I found: https://www.blendernation.com/2018/08/20/next-gen-blender-pr... Looks like a good movie. And Netflix dubbed it to Swedish! Will probably watch it with my kids some time.

My kids went wild for Next-Gen, I had no idea it was done in Blender! The graphics are first-class, really impressive stuff. I'm an amateur, but I couldn't tell it apart from other studios such as Pixar.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#142

Post by _bxg1 »

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…

Yeah. The idea of a world where every piece of software is free and open is a nice one, but unfortunately we live in a society where people have to be compensated for their time in order to live, and doing support won't always cut it.

Edit: To be clear, I'm not downplaying that ideal, only pointing out that at least in the United States it's pretty unrealistic. In some other western countries they don't balk at the idea of public funding for projects that benefit society, and those would be one example of taking steps towards that more idealized world.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#143

Post by Joeboy »

pierrec wrote: post #126
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"?

I don't really support it, but this exact method appears to be working pretty well for Ardour (and yes, they are using GPL 2). It has resulted in some awkward situations, such as Ardour being available in the package managers of some Linux distros, but only as outdated, poorly installed versions. I remember installing such a version and finding it basically unusable. Nonetheless, this technique gets them patrons, cur…

Last I checked, Ardour was fairly easy to install from a git checkout, at least on Linux. Their website advises uses to install the paid binary instead, but in practice it's easier to install from source than Blender IME.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#144

Post by neilv »

herbstein wrote: post #54
neilv wrote: post #18

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…

I'm a soon-to-be third year CS student. If I started to use the term "libre software" I'd be ridiculed to hell and back. I think you overestimate the receptiveness of developers.

Why would you be ridiculed? (I could try to guess, based on what I've heard from some undergrads I've talked with recently about it, but I'd like to know the actual reasons in your case.)

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#145

Post by ujoh1 »

Joeboy wrote: post #143
pierrec wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really support it, but this exact method appears to be working pretty well for Ardour (and yes, they are using GPL 2). It has resulted in some awkward situations, such as Ardour being available in the package managers of some Linux distros, but only as outdated, poorly installed versions. I remember installing such a version and finding it basically unusable. Nonetheless, this technique gets them patrons, cur…

Last I checked, Ardour was fairly easy to install from a git checkout, at least on Linux. Their website advises uses to install the paid binary instead, but in practice it's easier to install from source than Blender IME.

Hello

see how you can start making a steady daily passive incomes on virta stock trading without you risking your money and your investment. visit the website here http://www.virtatrade.com/index.php for more details

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#146

Post by carlmr »

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…

>And it wouldn't even interfere with their competitive edge, since the software isn't their business. They don't have to care about the GPL as long as the software does what they want.

Most developers know this, but company managers that forbid open source contribution don't understand this. That's why I'm personally not too much against source available licensing. It's the only language old companies understand.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#147

Post by somatic »

mungoid wrote: post #42

This argument has been going on for a while, but apparently exploded recently. Im so conflicted about this. I feel like my left brain is fighting my right brain. Or mom and dad are fighting again. On one hand, I have been a huge blender fan for over a decade and personally would give away anything I developed for it. Even if it were high quality. I am all for this way of doing it. Kind of forcing a level playing fiel…

What if there were a license that made all hobbyist and educational use free and open source, and all commercial use propriety with kickbacks to devs?

Would that resolve your hemispheric conflict?

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#148

Post by tmaly »

I really wanted to try to learn blender for 2d animation.

I think the new version in beta needs a few improvements on this front. Its so new that it will take a bit more time to get good tutorials made.

That being said, the UI in the beta version is much improved. I am looking forward to getting better at using it.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#149

Post by _bxg1 »

mungoid wrote: post #42

This argument has been going on for a while, but apparently exploded recently. Im so conflicted about this. I feel like my left brain is fighting my right brain. Or mom and dad are fighting again. On one hand, I have been a huge blender fan for over a decade and personally would give away anything I developed for it. Even if it were high quality. I am all for this way of doing it. Kind of forcing a level playing fiel…

If only there were a license that made the original project open but allowed you to license derived works in whichever way was most appropriate...

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#150

Post by jancsika »

Jedd wrote: post #25
neilv wrote: post #18

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…

I considered this position some years ago, but concluded in the time it takes to explain that libre is a word from another language that means 'free in the sense of speech, not beer', I could just say I'm using the word free in the sense of speech, not beer. These days I don't think the problem is the use of the ostensibly ambiguous word 'free', so much as that people (generic) don't really value freedom (or privacy)…

"Generic" people probably only come into contact with FLOSS principles when the plane reboots the entertainment center and they accidentally catch a glimpse of the Linux penguin in the boot screen.

On the near zero chance they remember the penguin and ask a free software zealot about it, they'd likely get an earful about how that is a symbol taken from the 2nd Presbyterian Church of Code, and please don't confuse that with the symbology from the 1st Presbyterian Church of Code across the street from it.[1]

The only FLOSS orgs I know that conceivably care about that generic person sitting in coach are Mozilla and Whisper Systems. And both are small time players compared to their proprietary competition.

Given that, it is extraordinary that normal people know anything at all about digital freedom and privacy.

[1] Just remembered that Linux is GPLv2 licensed, and that the religious zealotry would probably be about Linux not being GNU, but rather a "final" piece that was "good enough" to use in conjunction with other GPLvs licensed OS tools. So it's even worse-- this is like explaining to someone that they're reading the right book in the wrong wing of the right church. I love FLOSS so much.

Post reply on HN