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

51–60 of 109 posts

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#51

Post by wakeupcall »

nkallen wrote: post #49
wakeupcall wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pl…

I'd be raising both eyebrows if c3d allowed this. That would be a very non-conventional licensing model.

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#52

Post by jcelerier »

nkallen wrote: post #31
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

Yes that is correct. I am not ok with others. Edit: Jesus do you really not recognize sarcasm? People are free to use whatever license they want and I’m free to explain why I choose lgpl over gpl

> People are free to use whatever license they want and I’m free to explain why I choose lgpl over gpl

choosing a license is a political act whether you want it or not - you are free to choose whichever license you want, that does not mean you won't get called out (like for any other choice with political relevancy even tenuous - eating meat, driving a car, etc. to speak about things I am guilty of for instance)

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#53

Post by fxtentacle »

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.

I agree with that. It's basically impossible to build a legal OBS AI plugin. You need libObs which is GPL but also DirectML which is closed source.

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#54

Post by nkallen »

wakeupcall wrote: post #51
nkallen wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 pl…

I'd be raising both eyebrows if c3d allowed this. That would be a very non-conventional licensing model.

It is for sure a murky area where I'm working out the details. You don't have the full kernel. But you can think of it a bit like a scripting API on top of the kernel, which is not uncommon in CAD apps, like OnShape's FeatureScript or something.

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#55

Post by throwra620 »

nkallen wrote: post #29
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…

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

No post body was provided.

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#56

Post by jcelerier »

nkallen wrote: post #45
esteth wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

Of course they do. The goal of GPL is to reduce the amount of proprietary software in the world. Proprietary plug-ins would go directly against this.

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#57

Post by nkallen »

fsloth wrote: post #50
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

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 mod…

I think it's fine for people to have varying philosophical takes on what should be the normative goals of open source software licenses. Obviously the FSF takes a rather maximalist stance. I personally find this aggressive goal and some of the personalities behind it to not match my vibe. And the reality is that more permissive licenses like MIT are becoming more and more popular.

What I've seen some Blender plugins do to get around this is to have an open-source plugin communicate via IPC to a closed source library. It's totally legal. It's a performance and implementation tax that just seems silly to me.

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#58

Post by hoseja »

jcelerier wrote: post #56
nkallen wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> That’s exactly my take. What exactly constitutes a “derived work” in the gpl (plug-ins do!) Of course they do. The goal of GPL is to reduce the amount of proprietary software in the world. Proprietary plug-ins would go directly against this.

The result of GPL is reducing the amount of GPL in the world.

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#59

Post by slightknack »

jcelerier wrote: post #52
nkallen wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes that is correct. I am not ok with others. Edit: Jesus do you really not recognize sarcasm? People are free to use whatever license they want and I’m free to explain why I choose lgpl over gpl

> People are free to use whatever license they want and I’m free to explain why I choose lgpl over gpl choosing a license is a political act whether you want it or not - you are free to choose whichever license you want, that does not mean you won't get called out (like for any other choice with political relevancy even tenuous - eating meat, driving a car, etc. to speak about things I am guilty of for instance)

We shouldn't have to live in a culture when being called out for making a 'choice with tenuous political relevancy' is socially expected, and something someone is 'guilty of'.
Post reply on HN