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

271–280 of 335 posts

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#271

Post by ralph84 »

Koshkin wrote: post #261
ralph84 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are certainly some people who argue that any form of IP shouldn’t exist. Copyleft is a way to work within the existing IP system, but they would prefer IP be abolished. As for why free software took off while free $(other engineering discipline) hasn’t, I’d say it’s because “everyone” has a computer, but very few have an airplane factory.

"everyone" has bookshelves; should books be free, then?

There already are lots of books in the public domain or licensed under creative commons. But in general, yes, the same arguments some people use for removing IP restrictions on software apply equally to books. Or music. Or anything else subject to copyright.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#272

Post by cosmodisk »

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…

The main reason why Blender,GIMP and the likes don't get a lot of backing from the industry is because pricing is just a small puece of the overall picture. If a shop is anything but some random visualisations for real estate, there are budgets, decent salaries and etc., so even spending a few grand on Maya or 3DS Max doesn't quite change anything. Development in such a niche and complex field takes time.I doubt one developer would be able to do much,even full time,apart from fixing some small bugs..

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#273

Post by cosmodisk »

weinzierl wrote: post #164
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…

> I think it has something to do with appealing to an employee's vanity, where getting a very expensive software package "for free" to do your job makes one feel appreciated. It learned 3D modelling with one of those "very expensive software packages" and it made me feel appreciated at the time. The knowledge however is now completely useless for me because the software, while still existing, is totally niche now. Bl…

Remember doing bits and bobs with Alias studio (more than 15 years ago) when I was a kid. I think it used to cost about $100K, which to me,at the time, was something out of this world. The principles behind these packages are almost always the same so they are relatively transferable.Of course, understanding new interface and software itself is a step one would need to take when transitioning.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#274

Post by cosmodisk »

damon_c wrote: post #234
chii wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The concepts and techniques are universal, the only difference is the implementation. only someone who hasn't really used the tool in anger and mastered it would claim this. I can't even switch to eclipse from intellij and not have a huge productivity hit for several months. and that's just typing code! A real 3D modeller would have so much muscle memory for their modelling app of choice it't not funny.

Yes, exactly this. As someone who had a prior career in VFX using mostly Autodesk and Adobe software, there are people who spend their whole career in one of these packages and have a lot of difficulty becoming fluent in a second one. They are designed with completely different metaphors and workflows and yes, the end result is always pixels, but learning multiple high end creative software is nothing like learning d…

We need to compare Apples with apples here. VFX is like programming languages,while the software(Maya, SOLIDWORKS, Blender) are like IDEs ( Eclipse, Intellij). The principles behind VFX software are universal, however one should be able to get going by simply reading a decent book about the package.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#275

Post by lokedhs »

type0 wrote: post #266
novok wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source available is useful for debugging at least. I sure wish I had 'source available' when making iOS apps!

> Source available is useful for debugging at least how so?

I'm not the parent author, but when I developed Android applications having the source to the widget libraries available to me me was incredibly valuable.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#276

Post by keyle »

cosmodisk wrote: post #272
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…

The main reason why Blender,GIMP and the likes don't get a lot of backing from the industry is because pricing is just a small puece of the overall picture. If a shop is anything but some random visualisations for real estate, there are budgets, decent salaries and etc., so even spending a few grand on Maya or 3DS Max doesn't quite change anything. Development in such a niche and complex field takes time.I doubt one…

I've used extensively Blender and HAD TO use Gimp. I strongly disagree the correlation. Although it is one you could make on paper, Blender is a fantastic piece of software and highly usable. Gimp is gimp.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#277

Post by nineteen999 »

smellsdonkey wrote: post #73
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…

Tangent Animation is trying to change this! They use almost 100% Blender, have some developers and contribute back to the community. See "Next-Gen" on Netflix for their latest movie. Disclaimer: Worked for them as a Blender developer on Next-Gen

I watched this with my kid just the other day, I had no idea it was done with Blender.

It has also been used for many of the VFX shots in the TV show "Man in the High Castle".

https://www.blender.org/user-stories/visual-effects-for-the-...

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#278

Post by anchpop »

traverseda wrote: post #227
eps wrote: post #184

An API can be used as a GPL propagation route only for as long as there's a single implementation of it that's GPL'd. And only potentially at that. For example, if I "publish" an API: int strlength(const char *); and ship a GPL code for it, I cannot realistically expect anyone depending on strlength() to be suddenly liable for GPL'ing their work. That'd be ridiculous. Meaning that for the Blender add-ons to not be su…

Sure, once there's a some-other-license re-implementation of blender it's fair game. Pretty sure there isn't one though?

Does it have to be a real reimplementation? What if I made a terrible, low effort 3D modelling application that "officially supports" the same API that blender supports, but isn't GPL. Would non-GPL addons targeting that be legal?

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#279

Post by phkahler »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #169
jsty wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Any medium sized graphics shop could have a full developer on the payroll for a fraction of the repeated licensing costs of proprietary solutions" If the returns to the particular company that employed the developer was higher than the opportunity cost of expending that money elsewhere in the company, then you'd have a strong case for that. However, most medium sized graphics shops are probably concerned that they'd…

> However, most medium sized graphics shops are probably concerned that they'd effectively be subsidising their competitors' production costs, since the 'exclusive' returns to the shop employing the developer are likely minimal compared to any other user of the feature they develop. What causes most usage of big proprietary software is that the software has 10,000 features and every customer only needs five of them,…

Nobody wants to wait for a developer to implement the things they want. If they have work to do, they need a solution NOW. Pick what's available and pay what it costs. For commercial software that's some $$$ and for Free software that's $0.00. Then once the purchase has been made, the question of paying someone to work on it is a separate issue. Most rational people would say "why would I do that?"

Comparing paying a FLOSS developer to paying for commercial software doesn't make sense. Companies don't see themselves as funding development either way.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#280

Post by pessimizer »

anchpop wrote: post #247
lone_haxx0r wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a world without intellectual property, source available would equal free software. I think the FSF has tried to squash too many semantic, technical and legal subtleties into the GPL, the words free, libre, etc.

No it wouldn't, for software to be "Free software" it must be GPL-or-other-copyleft-license licensed, which aside from being trivially impossible in a world without intellectual property laws, also has different outcomes than placing the source in the public domain. For example nothing prevents me from taking some public domain code and including it in my closed-source application, but the GPL forbids this.

In a world without intellectual property, your closed-source application would be a trade secret that would quickly get out.
Post reply on HN