Blender Is Free Software • Hacker News Board

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#331

Post by bsavery » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 12:12 AM UTC

opencl wrote: post #106

lozenge wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Whether or not "using an API" requires your software to be GPL depends on how it's implemented. 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 wh…

Actually this is exactly what we did with the renderman addon for Blender. And AFAIK how other renderer addons work.

Frankly if you want to be doing any meaningful computation in your addon it probably makes sense to go this route and have the closed source part in C while the addon "bridge" is python.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#332

Post by bsavery » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 12:17 AM UTC

heavenlyblue wrote: post #67

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…

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 think what you're referring to is paying for -support- There is no blender version of "Red Hat" that companies can rely on to deliver fixes or support.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#333

Post by somatic » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 3:12 AM UTC

the_why_of_y wrote: post #323

somatic wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the text of #6: "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research." My thought is not to restrict anyone from doing anything. Rather that, for example, any profit-seeking entity can use any code, but that that profit-seeking entity must pay a st…

> "The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.", the GNU/GPL don't qualify as "open source" software. May I suggest you first read the license before jumping to the conclusion that the OSI is incompetent at reviewing licenses?…

It’s true that I haven’t comprehensively studied the license.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#334

Post by somatic » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 3:18 AM UTC

starbugs wrote: post #319

somatic wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the text of #6: "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research." My thought is not to restrict anyone from doing anything. Rather that, for example, any profit-seeking entity can use any code, but that that profit-seeking entity must pay a st…

> My thought is not to restrict anyone from doing anything. Rather that, for example, any profit-seeking entity can use any code, but that that profit-seeking entity must pay a standard and proportional fee to the license-holder of that code, generally its author(s) and/or maintainer(s). Well, so you are effectively restricting the field of endeavor. People who want to do business with the code licensed this way can…

My observation is fundamentally that if open source can be cannibalized by profit-seeking entities, it will be so cannibalized.

It’s true that I haven’t comprehensively studied the GPL.

Mostly I’ve observed companies using hundreds, thousands, or millions of hours (depending) of the very hard work of many very smart open source devs in building their own proprietary systems on top and making fucktons of money, none of which is ever seen by the people who made 90 or 95% of their business possible.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#335

Post by antidesitter » Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 7:15 PM UTC

Intermernet wrote: post #317

antidesitter wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The notion that "people" aren't "able to make money" with FLOSS is just a fallacy Which fallacy?

The one you quoted. Many people make money from open source software.

The comment they’re replying to said “I don't think it's a viable business model for all of us,” not that it’s not a viable model for any of us.