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

91–100 of 109 posts

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#91

Post by nkallen »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #85
jcelerier wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's totally legal. If the IPC is here only for the sake of circumventing the GPL (e.g. there aren't any meaningful use of the "GPL plug-in" part through this IPC channel outside of communication with the non-GPL program), it's totally not. What are such plug-ins ?

Why would it be illegal to use IPC to communicate from one GPL executable to another non GPL executable? Files are interprocess communication too. If files are fine and other forms are not, then it starts to get into an argument of speed making something illegal. Not only that, but network communication is IPC and that would imply that it's fine to have a GPL program go to another computer holding a non GPL program,…

Mr Dildonic it's definitely not illegal, the poster is a troll

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#92

Post by nkallen »

k2enemy wrote: post #86
nkallen wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to emphasize to everyone that this is for concept artists. It’s nurbs used to create interesting shapes and fillets. While there are some parametric features, they’re completely de emphasized compared to something like fusion or solidworks

Some very basic parametric features might open this up to a large woodworking community that wants to sketch out design ideas before building. Sketchup used to be the goto but now people are hungry for a replacement (which seems to be Fusion360 at the moment) but don't want or need a full CAD solution.

don't sleep on shapr3d which is also very awesome

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#93

Post by CyberDildonics »

nkallen wrote: post #91
CyberDildonics wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it be illegal to use IPC to communicate from one GPL executable to another non GPL executable? Files are interprocess communication too. If files are fine and other forms are not, then it starts to get into an argument of speed making something illegal. Not only that, but network communication is IPC and that would imply that it's fine to have a GPL program go to another computer holding a non GPL program,…

Mr Dildonic it's definitely not illegal, the poster is a troll

I think so. I originally said there were a lot of holes in their argument, but I think they didn't actually make an argument in the first place, they just made a claim with no evidence behind it.

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#94

Post by jcelerier »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #93
nkallen wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mr Dildonic it's definitely not illegal, the poster is a troll

I think so. I originally said there were a lot of holes in their argument, but I think they didn't actually make an argument in the first place, they just made a claim with no evidence behind it.

The GPL does not care about stuff such as libraries, executable, etc. The only relevant concern is whether your IPC-splitted thing is part of the program, or is a public API expected to be used by many unrelated other programs.

Quoting the GPL:

> The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work.

The relevant part is "intimate data communication": querying for instance some other program's publicly-advertised D-Bus API, such as a notification service expected to be used by the whole operating system wouldn't be "intimate data communication". However splitting a single executable into two parts which don't individually make sense are obviously "intimate data communication" - it may be two binaries, but it's still one single software from the point of view of the end-user.

If the GPL part of your plug-in cannot do meaningful things (basically still be useable for its original goal by the end user) without the other, proprietary, side of the IPC up and running, then they have "intimate data communication" and distributing it is breaching the GPL.

I have a hard time imagining how one would justify that a CAD plug-in split under two parts for IPC wouldn't constitute a single work for instance, with the following GPL paragraph in mind:

> A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit.

You mentioned drivers: they are specifically denoted in the paragraph above ("it does not include the work's System Libraries").

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#95

Post by k2enemy »

nkallen wrote: post #92
k2enemy wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some very basic parametric features might open this up to a large woodworking community that wants to sketch out design ideas before building. Sketchup used to be the goto but now people are hungry for a replacement (which seems to be Fusion360 at the moment) but don't want or need a full CAD solution.

don't sleep on shapr3d which is also very awesome

Thank you! I hadn't heard of it and will check it out.

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#96

Post by ajford »

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.

But why would a GPL app need to force GPL on a plugin? That seems to me like a perfectly reasonable boundary between the two applications. If I wanted to leverage OBS for example and introduce my own plugin that made use of a closed-source library or tool I had the license for, I should be able to create it. My third-party plugin doesn't impede the distribution and usage of OBS in any way, only provides a separate feature that might require a different license.

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#97

Post by fsloth »

dsign wrote: post #25
nkallen wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a significant issue for anyone doing business with Russia. I’m happy with c3d in general but there is a possibility I will be forced to use another kernel

It hurts what is happening in Ukraine now, and still Putin has support of more than 50% of the Russian people. Please, don't support them.

I think all recognize the necessity for general sanctions due to the heinous, illegal and genocidal invasion of Ukraine. This however, is a slightly tangent topic to that.

Some software companies with operations in Russia are Russian, other have their IP licensed by a legal entity outside of Russia. Not sure into which category c3d falls into. Which partially motivated my question.

One really can't stop using code a native Russian has ever touched - it's like deciding never to read Tolstoy again, only much harder since Russians are very prolific in software technology. Also, for code for whose IP has been already purchased, it would not be very effective as a sanctioning tool. The point is not to "cancel" Russian culture or technological output as such - only to stop trade to put economic pressure on the population and hence their government. The domain of the licensing entity in that sense is relevant here, but not to simply "stop using anything from Russia".

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#98

Post by finder83 »

k2enemy wrote: post #86
nkallen wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to emphasize to everyone that this is for concept artists. It’s nurbs used to create interesting shapes and fillets. While there are some parametric features, they’re completely de emphasized compared to something like fusion or solidworks

Some very basic parametric features might open this up to a large woodworking community that wants to sketch out design ideas before building. Sketchup used to be the goto but now people are hungry for a replacement (which seems to be Fusion360 at the moment) but don't want or need a full CAD solution.

That was exactly my thought. I've tried to use fusion/freecad/etc for woodworking, but this looks amazing for it. But I'd like to set some basic dimensional parameters

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#99

Post by riidom »

danboarder wrote: post #10
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 has supported NURBS (Non-uniform rational B-spline) modeling since 2.9 (fairly recent). https://www.makeuseof.com/nurbs-curves-3d-modeling-blender-t...

That's not true, see

https://blenderartists.org/t/nurbs-surface-creation-2-49/489... (2010)

(it may be even older than that, but I don't know about the pre-2.49 era)

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#100

Post by jcelerier »

ajford wrote: post #96
jcelerier wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

But why would a GPL app need to force GPL on a plugin? That seems to me like a perfectly reasonable boundary between the two applications. If I wanted to leverage OBS for example and introduce my own plugin that made use of a closed-source library or tool I had the license for, I should be able to create it. My third-party plugin doesn't impede the distribution and usage of OBS in any way, only provides a separate fe…

As someone who spends most of his days on a GPL app which loads plug-ins, I do not want my work to serve the interest of proprietary software vendors more than strictly necessary, simple as that. I spent the effort of writing the app, defining its plug-in APIs, etc; if others want to benefit from this effort they should also spend the effort of writing GPL plug-ins. The end result is that no end user will ever be stuck because $PROPRIETARY api shut downs or change (and in my field I've seen that a ton of times).

> I should be able to create it.

Why do you feel entitled to that ? No one prevents you to go and write your own OBS-like or look for a proprietary alternative (and don't complain when they change or shut down their API with no possible recourse at all). But here you look you you want to benefit from the work of OBS contributors, without satisfying the simple obligation in return: the program that you redistribute must be open, just like it was when you found it.

Post reply on HN