16 ms·

Blender Is Free Software

730 points by kiki_jiki 7y ago

lruor 7y ago
I don't understand the point of this post. It's full of fluff. Is he arguing that people should open source the add-ons they create for Blender?
- jsty 7y ago
  He explicitly says so in the comments section: "Blender add-ons (Python scripts using the Blender API) have to be GPL license compatible. You pay for the service to download it, not for the software. Never feel bad about harming any GPL developer by sharing her/his code. Sharing is an act of love!"
  - village-idiot 7y ago
    Paraphrasing from another comment, you know that the post is unclear when you have to explain it in the comments section.
    - sverige 7y ago
      I think most discussions about the GPL have this feature.
Jonnax 7y ago
Can someone provide some context for this post? Are there calls to change Blender's license? Are add-on developers violating GPL? The post mentions that a bridge between open source and proprietary needs to be open source but the add-on itself doesn't? Is it just a "how dare you sell products closed source products on top of blender?" The business model of providing support is all well and good but it's just one. If the software is super easy to use then why would you pay?
- tetrep 7y ago
  I don't have any additional context, but the overall style of the post makes it sound to me like it could be talking about a change in the add-on API license or something (in addition to a general pro GPL post). This is the strongest evidence I have: > I expect that all add-on developers recognize and respect this concept.
- klez 7y ago
  I think this is for the recent surge of quasi-open-source license changes some products have gone through. That's why they underline the difference between free software and open source. Recently people started saying that the OSI's Open Source Definition is restrictive and obsolete, that having the sources available is enough, that it's not a problem to restrict usage, etc... That's why it's important to stress "free as in freedom" in free software and not "open as in you can see the source" in open source.
  - lone_haxx0r 7y ago
    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.
    - anchpop 7y ago
      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.
      - pessimizer 7y ago
        In a world without intellectual property, your closed-source application would be a trade secret that would quickly get out.
starbugs 7y ago
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 spirit of open source development and the GPL. Still, I don't think it's a viable business model for all of us under all circumstances. People need to be able to make money with their software or otherwise some software just won't be available. I guess that's effectively what this says for the Blender community. Nothing wrong with that at all, just not the way to go for everyone. [0] https://fund.blender.org/ https://fund.blender.org/
- Jedd 7y ago
  > I honestly agree with most of what this article says and I admire the spirit of open source development and the GPL. If you don't admire the spirit of free software as well / instead, then you may have missed the point of the article.
  - starbugs 7y ago
    How is me allegedly not admiring something related to missing "the" point of the article?
    - Jedd 7y ago
      TFA refers heavily to 'free' as in the freedoms associated with this. You cite 'open source' as something that you admire. It's well known that 'free software' describes an attitude that the 'open source' crowd wasn't as keen to embrace, hence the subsequent linguistic wrangling.
      - starbugs 7y ago
        The article refers to a "free/open source business model". Even there the terms are used in a somewhat identical fashion. I really don't see how this kind of linguistic wrangling helps. Instead it kind of diverts from my initial point and drives the discussion into nitpicking.
javagram 7y ago
> Blender’s scripting API is an integral part of the software. Blender add-ons work, look and feel like Blender features. And as for any other Blender feature that means – it has to be free, free and free forever! Paying for an add-on can only mean access to the add-on download service… offering it to you as GNU GPL. Your freedom as a user and developer is guaranteed. This is the same issue that wordpress has faced in the past, I believe - are proprietary plugins allowed to a GPLed product?
- BorisTheBrave 7y ago
  They treat addons as GPL'd. The same issue comes up with Blender Game Engine, requiring the whole game to be GPL.
  - andyonthewings 7y ago
    Notice that the Blender Game Engine is discontinued anyway. People seem to instead use Armory3D[1], which has full Blender integration and is zlib licensed[2]. 1: https://armory3d.org https://armory3d.org 2: https://github.com/armory3d/armory/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/armory3d/armory/blob/master/LICENSE.md
- donatj 7y ago
  I’d genuinely like to see this challenged in court. IANAL but I don’t think it is enforceable. It’s the whole “You used our interface” question similar to the Google v Oracle debacle all over again. In my mind it’s the same issue as selling 3rd party printer ink, or aftermarket car parts. The manufacturer should have no say.
- chii 7y ago
  I reckon a fair way is if blender has a proprietary licence available to plugin vendors who wants to sell non-GPL version of their plugin. I suppose the proprietary licence can be a small share of the profit from the plugin sales.
neilv 7y ago
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, and if you only say "free software", and they don't already know what you mean, you're actually working against your goal. People who don't know what "free software" means naturally assume you mean software for which they don't pay money. If you instead say "libre software", it's not misleading, and if they don't know, and they care, they can ask you about it, or look it up. (I suspect it would've been better to fully embrace the "libre" term before an office suite was branded that. Now we have a new potential source of confusion, such as "Yes, I already tried Libre, but liked Office better". But I still usually feel more effective saying "libre software" than "free software". And, in practice, I end up saying "open source" perhaps the majority of the time, even when I'm thinking libre specifically, because "open source" is more established than "libre", perhaps because the FSF keeps saying "free".)
- kingpinfreddy 7y ago
  Wtf
  - fredgrott 7y ago
    free and gratis difference but English has two versions of free ie free and gratis..Libre is gratis
    - user5994461 7y ago
      Are you sure? It's the opposite in latin.
      - tapland 7y ago
        Gratis as in without any associated cost and fri (free) as in without restrictions is the usage in Swedish as well.
mungoid 7y ago
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 field no matter if you are AAA studio or some broke but talented college student making 3d models. On the other hand I totally get how those add-on devs feel being officially told "Thanks for all your hard work, but if someone takes your add-on and gives it away, it's fine." - These add-on devs can charge users to download the add-on, not for the add-on. I used to believe it wasnt right to charge for the ability to download a 'free' add-on, but after seeing how high quality some of the addons are, I completely feel they deserve some compensation for improving blender even more. Basically, I don't even know what's right anymore.
- somatic 7y ago
  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?
  - starbugs 7y ago
    This is exactly what open source is not, per definition of the OSI: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd, see paragraph 6 "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor". What you are proposing is a form of a shared source license.
    - somatic 7y ago
      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 standard and proportional fee to the license-holder of that code, generally its author(s) and/or maintainer(s). Does that qualify as "restricting anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor"? Going by the wording, I would lean toward "no". Furthermore, while on that page I glanced at the other paragraphs, and I couldn't help but notice that according to #9: "License Must Not Restrict Other Software" and its text: "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. It is to laugh.
dharmon 7y ago
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"?
- vortico 7y ago
  Then the "most motivated users" could release their build scripts, and the project would become fragmented.
- UncleEntity 7y ago
  They (more than likely) are python scripts so the install step is copying to the addon folder. Haven't looked into the blender thing in a while but someone could use the generated C++ API to create an addon and make it difficult to install but who knows if anyone (other than cycles) uses it.
- javagram 7y ago
  That wouldn’t comply with the letter of the GPL. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html > The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
- eMSF 7y ago
  Quoting GPLv2 >The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. Worded a bit differently in v3 >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. TL;DR: no
craigsmansion 7y ago
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 Blender and whom you can directly approach, in-house, for features and fixes. 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. 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.
- heavenlyblue 7y ago
  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.
  - weberc2 7y ago
    I would think the obvious way a corporation could contribute would be financially.
    - fsloth 7y ago
      That's what they do to contribute financially to software development. It's called buying a license. Sure, sometimes they buy closed sourcr licenses, but as a corporation providing services to a third party you don't care about the license - you care very much the software adds the value to the output of the employee who uses it.
      - weberc2 7y ago
        The GP was talking about hiring a developer to contribute. I pointed out that financial support is an option. Yes, licensing is one model, but a check is also valid.
forrestthewoods 7y ago
Wait a second. Shouldn’t it be possible for someone to sell a Blender add-on but it keep it closed source and non-GPL? That’s just writing code for an API. As we all know from Google vs Oracle case it would be disastrous if API’s could be copyrighted. GPL is “just” a copyright license. I’m not sure how Blender add-ons work though.
- zemo 7y ago
  GPL-licensed projects can't link against non-GPL code. This provision is extended to cover plugins and functional extensions of interpreted environments. That's why a lot of people don't like the GPL. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPlugins https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPlugins https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
  - forrestthewoods 7y ago
    “we believe” If Google wins their case against Oracle this would _have_ to not be true. Right? Oh man. I wonder what the fallout of that would be? The internet has long been terrified of Oracle winning. I’ve never been certain the internets proclamations of doom were right.
  - lone_haxx0r 7y ago
    But what do the plugins link against? As far as the plugin creator is concerned the license of the object files of the API could be MIT, closed source, GPL or whatever. He doesn't bundle any Blender code.
    - zemo 7y ago
      The GPL is written in such a way that the GPL argues that any plugin designed for a GPL-licensed application is itself GPL-licensed. > If the main program and the plugins are a single combined program then this means you must license the plug-in under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license and distribute it with source code in a GPL-compliant way. A main program that is separate from its plug-ins makes no requirements for the plug-ins. ok, so does Blender and a Blender plugin constitute a combined program? > If the main program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, and they establish intimate communication by sharing complex data structures, or shipping complex data structures back and forth, that can make them one single combined program. A main program that uses simple fork and exec to invoke plug-ins and does not establish intimate communication between them results in the plug-ins being a separate program. depends on the definition of "intimate communication". Does a process that spawns another process and then communicates with that process over a unix pipe constitute "intimate communication"? There's no section of definitions that provides a legal definition of "intimate communication". It also does not provide a legal definition of "control flow". If one system sends a message to another system and then takes action based on a response, is that control flow? Does it depend on whether or not the systems are synchronous? It also doesn't provide a legal definition for "dynamic linking". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Communicating_and_bundling_with_non-GPL_programs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Com... > The FSF thus draws the line between "library" and "other program" via 1) "complexity" and "intimacy" of information exchange, and 2) mechanism (rather than semantics), but resigns that the question is not clear-cut and that in complex situations, case law will decide. honestly I'm not sure anyone actually knows because it hasn't been tried in court and there isn't established case law.
asutekku 7y ago
When 90% of the plugins and tutorials are available for proprietary software it’s hard to support blender. It also doesn’t help that the UI of the blender is extremely hostile for new users. When other tools are easier to use and have better tooling it’s hard to justify the usage of blender.
- wlesieutre 7y ago
  2.8 is a big step forward for the new user experience. https://www.blender.org/2-8/#user-interface https://www.blender.org/2-8/#user-interface They’re also finally switching the default to left click select. Having to select with right click was one of the big things that made the UI feel really alien for anyone who hasn’t used it a lot.
  - Washuu 7y ago
    Blender 2.8 is literally the reason I am starting to actually learn 3D modelling. I have repeatedly tried 2.7 and could never get around that clunky interface along with the default mouse controls.
    - Theodores 7y ago
      2.79b is what you get with stock Ubuntu. Is it worth getting 2.8 if one is starting now?
      - kilpikaarna 7y ago
        It's still in beta with a release slated for July, but yes.
      - wlesieutre 7y ago
        It hasn’t hit the official release yet, but I would. Otherwise you’re learning an interface that’ll go away in a month. One benefit of 2.7 is that there are a more preexisting tutorials out for it, but 2.8 is getting quite a few as well. I haven’t been following too closely on what the best new tutorials are, but I saw some linked here the other day: https://reddit.com/r/blender/comments/by7ejt/having_bounced_off_blender_many_times_i_gave_28_a/ https://reddit.com/r/blender/comments/by7ejt/having_bounced_...
microcolonel 7y ago
The GPL is infectious, as in laughter.
dghughes 7y ago
Blender is a great application some day I will put more time into learning it. I have always loved drawing, photography and video. Even as a kid in the 80s when two of those were very expensive. I was into it so much that as a child and teen I was labelled as "that kid that likes to draw". Later in life I was moments away from apply to an art college (NSCAD) but backed out. Also as a kid I liked programming but I never did make anything. BASIC from magazines typed line by line into an Atari 600XL no storage, in the winter when power interruptions or outages were common. You would think with those interests Blender would be my thing but I was a generation too early and too poor. By the way I think many people don't know of all the capabilities Blender. Those that do use it may believe it's only for 3D graphics. But it's so much more than 3D graphics it has video editing, green screen even 3D printing and a game engine.
- freedomben 7y ago
  I didn't realize Blender did video editing! I do very basic editing, mostly with Kdenlive. I will have to give Blender a try.
  - iamcreasy 7y ago
    And Blender also does node based compositing. I think that's what Foundry Nuke is famous for.
  - sfink 7y ago
    It's pretty awkward to use for video editing. I tried it out, repeating a simple project I'd done in kdenlive. You have to do a lot of manual format setup. Worse, by default it'll be unusably slow until you configure the caching just right. I found it more of a "sure, you could get this done in blender, but..."
- em-bee 7y ago
  in an attempt to learn more about blender i just hosted a self-learning workshop a week ago. about 20 people showed up and together we explored what blender could do and how to work with it. no-one was an expert, and we didn't have anyone give a presentation. although one participant was a design teacher who had started to learn blender with his students. unpromted he stood up and shared what he had already learned about all the keyboard shortcuts. we had a great time and everyone learned something.
mungoid 7y ago
I see a ton of people talk about how difficult blender is/was to use, but what I found funny is some of those same people use VIM.. Blender took me almost the exact same amount of time to learn as 3ds, but honestly once I got used to blender, I actually find 3ds harder and more confusing to use and actually changed a bunch of keybindings to more closely match blender.
- _bxg1 7y ago
  Yep. Blender is impossible to use without instruction, but once you learn it it's perfectly usable.
  - iamcreasy 7y ago
    I think they started improving the UI with version 2.5, and now with the 2.8 release the UI is very user friendly. I still find the undo stack confusing sometimes.
kodablah 7y ago
Blender is free[×], forever [×] subject to terms and conditions, restrictions, our definition of the word free, and what we allow you to do with it even after you receive it
nurettin 7y ago
They give away code, but place restrictions on using it. When did we become so vile?
Koshkin 7y ago
Information comes in different forms, and I am not quite sure why software is considered speech (and must, therefore, be free), but, say, schematics of an industrial electronic device or the blueprint of an airplane is not.
- ralph84 7y ago
  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.
  - Koshkin 7y ago
    "everyone" has bookshelves; should books be free, then?
    - ralph84 7y ago
      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.
pvaldes 7y ago
Obviously, as it was since 20 years ago. This question was being answered and clear a lot of time ago. After buying books about blender, spending many hours and trying to learn it, I personally find that is still a big pain to use it, but this is a different question (and we can't blame propietary software for it; can we?). The real problem with blender is not if is free software or not, IMHO. Maybe Blender is the next low hanging fruit in the eyes of "put big company here". A clon provided with a few buttons here and there, some money for marketing and voilá, "we invented this zuppa-new thing that is great". Has happened before.
- rocky1138 7y ago
  What you're suggesting is what happened to MySQL. Oracle bought it and the community forked the last pre-Oracle version to a new project, MariaDB, where everyone continues on as before.
  - pvaldes 7y ago
    This is the normal way when a program was widely accepted and has a lot of legacy code around that needs to be maintained. This is not the case with blender. I remember when skype, or the germ of whatssap, were born, nurtured and developped in Linux. We don't have any good alternative to skype nowadays. Nobody remembers skype as open source. Blender interface was ridiculously hard to grasp for a newbie and as result, it looks still like a minoritary arcane software. I'm not in the community and could be wrong, but seen from outside it seems that blender is still struggling to be widely known or adopted. Twelve years had passed after "Big Buck Bunny" and blender seems to have problems still to attract new users (or it moves in a very closed circle).
    - xfer 7y ago
      Yeah nice comparison to a single user software to a social networking application.
tmaly 7y ago
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.
- em-bee 7y ago
  the next major version is supposed to have a much improved UI
ohiovr 7y ago
Not only is Blender free but there is a huge amount of incredibly high quality stock content that is creative commons too like blendswap.com
shafyy 7y ago
Without Blender we probably couldn't have started to develop our VR app as a small startup. Also, Ton seems to be genuinely nice and super funny guy.
dorena 7y ago
I‘m using blender every day and absolutely love it. the fact that it’s run by such a genuine and inspirational guy like Ton makes me like blender even more :) if you want to know more about him and his plan for Blender watch this interview https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qJEWOTZnFeg&vl=en https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qJEWOTZnFeg&vl=en or the tour of their new office (it’s really funny) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkKPXn6QBx8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkKPXn6QBx8
eps 7y ago
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 subject to Blender's GPL clause it should be sufficient to have an alternative implementation of Blender's API. This, incidentally, will also validate addons against GPL criteria for "derived software" - whether the code in question can or cannot function without GPL-licensed software. If it can, then it's not a derived work and not a subject to GPL terms. The only way for Blender to prevent commercial addons (which is ultimately what their actions amount to) is to explicitly prohibit that in their license.
- traverseda 7y ago
  Sure, once there's a some-other-license re-implementation of blender it's fair game. Pretty sure there isn't one though?
  - anchpop 7y ago
    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?
_pmf_ 7y ago
What motivated this post? The general licensing discussiin regarding SaaS appropriation by large players or something specific to Blender?
protomikron 7y ago
Blender is a great piece of software and I appreciate their choice of license (GPL). Obviously the GPL put a lot of thought in the development of their licenses and it's important for software developers to know about the subtle differences. With AGPL they try to close the loophole that companies use to build a network layer around GPL licensed code. AFAIK if you link to GPL your work is "derived", so you have to open it which is not the case if used "over the network". I wonder if AGPL should be considered a secret weapon against the big SaaS companies. On HN I read that GPL and especially AGPL software/libraries are a no-go for some of these companies, but maybe this can be a feature for small players?
didibus 7y ago
Does Blender make any money? Are the developers compensated? I've always had a kind of conflicting perspective, as a developer myself, I enjoy the vibrant exchange of information and source which is open and often free and even "gratis". It has helped me grow and learn, it empowers me to be more productive as I can leverage a lot of existing code. That said, it also often worries me that the culture isn't willing to pay for a lot of these, since being a developer is also my profession. If we get users used to not paying for software, and developers willing to work for free, does it devalue the job of developer? For example, I often wonder, if there was only proprietary software, would developer salaries be even higher? Would there be more devs who are small businesses, one to 3 man teams, working on software like grep, 7zip, calendars, todos, calculators, etc. ? As it seems, open source, especially the licenses which have the side effect of being mostly "gratis" forces the market into offering a service or product which isn't the software itself. Which is why a lot of devs can't make a living of being a small business, we need to be employed by bigger companies who offer collateral products or services.
- sfink 7y ago
  The direct financial impact is one thing to consider. But another is... I'll describe it as capability, complexity, and progress. The ability for developers to build on each other's stuff is hugely significant. Otherwise, every company reimplements the same stuff, and even for what they buy, the standard (and interoperable) solution that the industry settles on and is thus able to advance further, is determined by the vagaries of business: pricing, approach, market segmentation, lockin strategy, leaders' whims, etc. Quality factors in there somewhere. As a prominent CEO once said, "We're not here to write excellent software. We're here to write software that's better than our competitors'." Free software is more important at the foundational levels, because the virtuous cycle of endless improvement raises the baseline for everyone over time. For those of us whose livelihoods depend on software salaries, it cuts both ways. We can't get paid for writing grep, but we also don't have to spend our careers rewriting grep over and over again at different companies.
nerd7473 7y ago
Blender is one of those projects that even people who aren't into FOSS have at least heard of. It's pretty nifty!
cdnsteve 7y ago
How cool is this, Python! "Blender has a flexible Python controlled interface. Layout, colors, size and even fonts can be adjusted. Use hundreds of add-ons by the community or create your own using Blender’s accessible Python API."
stockkid 7y ago
> The GPL has often be called infectious ... Proprietary code is infectious in ways too (try to use proprietary code in your work and face the consequences). I don't think the comparison is fair. The reason is that use of proprietary code does not necessarily convert an entire codebase's license into that of the proprietary software. On the other hand, GPL's terms insist that the client code be released under the same term.
rolltiide 7y ago
I know how Foundations and Donor Advised Funds make their decisions, people that aspire to support open source don't have the discretion over the foundation funds to do so.
captainmarble 7y ago
Python was once an underdog looking up to java, now python stand shoulder to shoulder next to java. Only a matter of time for blender i guess.

730 points by kiki_jiki 7y ago

I don't understand the point of this post. It's full of fluff. Is he arguing that people should open source the add-ons they create for Blender?

jsty 7y ago
He explicitly says so in the comments section: "Blender add-ons (Python scripts using the Blender API) have to be GPL license compatible. You pay for the service to download it, not for the software. Never feel bad about harming any GPL developer by sharing her/his code. Sharing is an act of love!"
- village-idiot 7y ago
  Paraphrasing from another comment, you know that the post is unclear when you have to explain it in the comments section.
  - sverige 7y ago
    I think most discussions about the GPL have this feature.

Jonnax 7y ago

Can someone provide some context for this post? Are there calls to change Blender's license? Are add-on developers violating GPL? The post mentions that a bridge between open source and proprietary needs to be open source but the add-on itself doesn't? Is it just a "how dare you sell products closed source products on top of blender?" The business model of providing support is all well and good but it's just one. If the software is super easy to use then why would you pay?

tetrep 7y ago
I don't have any additional context, but the overall style of the post makes it sound to me like it could be talking about a change in the add-on API license or something (in addition to a general pro GPL post). This is the strongest evidence I have: > I expect that all add-on developers recognize and respect this concept.
klez 7y ago
I think this is for the recent surge of quasi-open-source license changes some products have gone through. That's why they underline the difference between free software and open source. Recently people started saying that the OSI's Open Source Definition is restrictive and obsolete, that having the sources available is enough, that it's not a problem to restrict usage, etc... That's why it's important to stress "free as in freedom" in free software and not "open as in you can see the source" in open source.
- lone_haxx0r 7y ago
  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.
  - anchpop 7y ago
    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.
    - pessimizer 7y ago
      In a world without intellectual property, your closed-source application would be a trade secret that would quickly get out.

starbugs 7y ago

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 spirit of open source development and the GPL. Still, I don't think it's a viable business model for all of us under all circumstances. People need to be able to make money with their software or otherwise some software just won't be available. I guess that's effectively what this says for the Blender community. Nothing wrong with that at all, just not the way to go for everyone. [0] https://fund.blender.org/ https://fund.blender.org/

Jedd 7y ago
> I honestly agree with most of what this article says and I admire the spirit of open source development and the GPL. If you don't admire the spirit of free software as well / instead, then you may have missed the point of the article.
- starbugs 7y ago
  How is me allegedly not admiring something related to missing "the" point of the article?
  - Jedd 7y ago
    TFA refers heavily to 'free' as in the freedoms associated with this. You cite 'open source' as something that you admire. It's well known that 'free software' describes an attitude that the 'open source' crowd wasn't as keen to embrace, hence the subsequent linguistic wrangling.
    - starbugs 7y ago
      The article refers to a "free/open source business model". Even there the terms are used in a somewhat identical fashion. I really don't see how this kind of linguistic wrangling helps. Instead it kind of diverts from my initial point and drives the discussion into nitpicking.

javagram 7y ago

> Blender’s scripting API is an integral part of the software. Blender add-ons work, look and feel like Blender features. And as for any other Blender feature that means – it has to be free, free and free forever! Paying for an add-on can only mean access to the add-on download service… offering it to you as GNU GPL. Your freedom as a user and developer is guaranteed. This is the same issue that wordpress has faced in the past, I believe - are proprietary plugins allowed to a GPLed product?

BorisTheBrave 7y ago
They treat addons as GPL'd. The same issue comes up with Blender Game Engine, requiring the whole game to be GPL.
- andyonthewings 7y ago
  Notice that the Blender Game Engine is discontinued anyway. People seem to instead use Armory3D[1], which has full Blender integration and is zlib licensed[2]. 1: https://armory3d.org https://armory3d.org 2: https://github.com/armory3d/armory/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/armory3d/armory/blob/master/LICENSE.md
donatj 7y ago
I’d genuinely like to see this challenged in court. IANAL but I don’t think it is enforceable. It’s the whole “You used our interface” question similar to the Google v Oracle debacle all over again. In my mind it’s the same issue as selling 3rd party printer ink, or aftermarket car parts. The manufacturer should have no say.
chii 7y ago
I reckon a fair way is if blender has a proprietary licence available to plugin vendors who wants to sell non-GPL version of their plugin. I suppose the proprietary licence can be a small share of the profit from the plugin sales.

neilv 7y ago

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, and if you only say "free software", and they don't already know what you mean, you're actually working against your goal. People who don't know what "free software" means naturally assume you mean software for which they don't pay money. If you instead say "libre software", it's not misleading, and if they don't know, and they care, they can ask you about it, or look it up. (I suspect it would've been better to fully embrace the "libre" term before an office suite was branded that. Now we have a new potential source of confusion, such as "Yes, I already tried Libre, but liked Office better". But I still usually feel more effective saying "libre software" than "free software". And, in practice, I end up saying "open source" perhaps the majority of the time, even when I'm thinking libre specifically, because "open source" is more established than "libre", perhaps because the FSF keeps saying "free".)

kingpinfreddy 7y ago
Wtf
- fredgrott 7y ago
  free and gratis difference but English has two versions of free ie free and gratis..Libre is gratis
  - user5994461 7y ago
    Are you sure? It's the opposite in latin.
    - tapland 7y ago
      Gratis as in without any associated cost and fri (free) as in without restrictions is the usage in Swedish as well.

mungoid 7y ago

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 field no matter if you are AAA studio or some broke but talented college student making 3d models. On the other hand I totally get how those add-on devs feel being officially told "Thanks for all your hard work, but if someone takes your add-on and gives it away, it's fine." - These add-on devs can charge users to download the add-on, not for the add-on. I used to believe it wasnt right to charge for the ability to download a 'free' add-on, but after seeing how high quality some of the addons are, I completely feel they deserve some compensation for improving blender even more. Basically, I don't even know what's right anymore.

somatic 7y ago
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?
- starbugs 7y ago
  This is exactly what open source is not, per definition of the OSI: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd, see paragraph 6 "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor". What you are proposing is a form of a shared source license.
  - somatic 7y ago
    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 standard and proportional fee to the license-holder of that code, generally its author(s) and/or maintainer(s). Does that qualify as "restricting anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor"? Going by the wording, I would lean toward "no". Furthermore, while on that page I glanced at the other paragraphs, and I couldn't help but notice that according to #9: "License Must Not Restrict Other Software" and its text: "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. It is to laugh.

dharmon 7y ago

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"?

vortico 7y ago
Then the "most motivated users" could release their build scripts, and the project would become fragmented.
UncleEntity 7y ago
They (more than likely) are python scripts so the install step is copying to the addon folder. Haven't looked into the blender thing in a while but someone could use the generated C++ API to create an addon and make it difficult to install but who knows if anyone (other than cycles) uses it.
javagram 7y ago
That wouldn’t comply with the letter of the GPL. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html > The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
eMSF 7y ago
Quoting GPLv2 >The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. Worded a bit differently in v3 >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. TL;DR: no

craigsmansion 7y ago

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 Blender and whom you can directly approach, in-house, for features and fixes. 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. 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.

heavenlyblue 7y ago
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.
- weberc2 7y ago
  I would think the obvious way a corporation could contribute would be financially.
  - fsloth 7y ago
    That's what they do to contribute financially to software development. It's called buying a license. Sure, sometimes they buy closed sourcr licenses, but as a corporation providing services to a third party you don't care about the license - you care very much the software adds the value to the output of the employee who uses it.
    - weberc2 7y ago
      The GP was talking about hiring a developer to contribute. I pointed out that financial support is an option. Yes, licensing is one model, but a check is also valid.

forrestthewoods 7y ago

Wait a second. Shouldn’t it be possible for someone to sell a Blender add-on but it keep it closed source and non-GPL? That’s just writing code for an API. As we all know from Google vs Oracle case it would be disastrous if API’s could be copyrighted. GPL is “just” a copyright license. I’m not sure how Blender add-ons work though.

zemo 7y ago
GPL-licensed projects can't link against non-GPL code. This provision is extended to cover plugins and functional extensions of interpreted environments. That's why a lot of people don't like the GPL. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPlugins https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPlugins https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
- forrestthewoods 7y ago
  “we believe” If Google wins their case against Oracle this would _have_ to not be true. Right? Oh man. I wonder what the fallout of that would be? The internet has long been terrified of Oracle winning. I’ve never been certain the internets proclamations of doom were right.
- lone_haxx0r 7y ago
  But what do the plugins link against? As far as the plugin creator is concerned the license of the object files of the API could be MIT, closed source, GPL or whatever. He doesn't bundle any Blender code.
  - zemo 7y ago
    The GPL is written in such a way that the GPL argues that any plugin designed for a GPL-licensed application is itself GPL-licensed. > If the main program and the plugins are a single combined program then this means you must license the plug-in under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license and distribute it with source code in a GPL-compliant way. A main program that is separate from its plug-ins makes no requirements for the plug-ins. ok, so does Blender and a Blender plugin constitute a combined program? > If the main program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, and they establish intimate communication by sharing complex data structures, or shipping complex data structures back and forth, that can make them one single combined program. A main program that uses simple fork and exec to invoke plug-ins and does not establish intimate communication between them results in the plug-ins being a separate program. depends on the definition of "intimate communication". Does a process that spawns another process and then communicates with that process over a unix pipe constitute "intimate communication"? There's no section of definitions that provides a legal definition of "intimate communication". It also does not provide a legal definition of "control flow". If one system sends a message to another system and then takes action based on a response, is that control flow? Does it depend on whether or not the systems are synchronous? It also doesn't provide a legal definition for "dynamic linking". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Communicating_and_bundling_with_non-GPL_programs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Com... > The FSF thus draws the line between "library" and "other program" via 1) "complexity" and "intimacy" of information exchange, and 2) mechanism (rather than semantics), but resigns that the question is not clear-cut and that in complex situations, case law will decide. honestly I'm not sure anyone actually knows because it hasn't been tried in court and there isn't established case law.

asutekku 7y ago

When 90% of the plugins and tutorials are available for proprietary software it’s hard to support blender. It also doesn’t help that the UI of the blender is extremely hostile for new users. When other tools are easier to use and have better tooling it’s hard to justify the usage of blender.

wlesieutre 7y ago
2.8 is a big step forward for the new user experience. https://www.blender.org/2-8/#user-interface https://www.blender.org/2-8/#user-interface They’re also finally switching the default to left click select. Having to select with right click was one of the big things that made the UI feel really alien for anyone who hasn’t used it a lot.
- Washuu 7y ago
  Blender 2.8 is literally the reason I am starting to actually learn 3D modelling. I have repeatedly tried 2.7 and could never get around that clunky interface along with the default mouse controls.
  - Theodores 7y ago
    2.79b is what you get with stock Ubuntu. Is it worth getting 2.8 if one is starting now?
    - kilpikaarna 7y ago
      It's still in beta with a release slated for July, but yes.
    - wlesieutre 7y ago
      It hasn’t hit the official release yet, but I would. Otherwise you’re learning an interface that’ll go away in a month. One benefit of 2.7 is that there are a more preexisting tutorials out for it, but 2.8 is getting quite a few as well. I haven’t been following too closely on what the best new tutorials are, but I saw some linked here the other day: https://reddit.com/r/blender/comments/by7ejt/having_bounced_off_blender_many_times_i_gave_28_a/ https://reddit.com/r/blender/comments/by7ejt/having_bounced_...

microcolonel 7y ago

The GPL is infectious, as in laughter.

dghughes 7y ago

Blender is a great application some day I will put more time into learning it. I have always loved drawing, photography and video. Even as a kid in the 80s when two of those were very expensive. I was into it so much that as a child and teen I was labelled as "that kid that likes to draw". Later in life I was moments away from apply to an art college (NSCAD) but backed out. Also as a kid I liked programming but I never did make anything. BASIC from magazines typed line by line into an Atari 600XL no storage, in the winter when power interruptions or outages were common. You would think with those interests Blender would be my thing but I was a generation too early and too poor. By the way I think many people don't know of all the capabilities Blender. Those that do use it may believe it's only for 3D graphics. But it's so much more than 3D graphics it has video editing, green screen even 3D printing and a game engine.

freedomben 7y ago
I didn't realize Blender did video editing! I do very basic editing, mostly with Kdenlive. I will have to give Blender a try.
- iamcreasy 7y ago
  And Blender also does node based compositing. I think that's what Foundry Nuke is famous for.
- sfink 7y ago
  It's pretty awkward to use for video editing. I tried it out, repeating a simple project I'd done in kdenlive. You have to do a lot of manual format setup. Worse, by default it'll be unusably slow until you configure the caching just right. I found it more of a "sure, you could get this done in blender, but..."
em-bee 7y ago
in an attempt to learn more about blender i just hosted a self-learning workshop a week ago. about 20 people showed up and together we explored what blender could do and how to work with it. no-one was an expert, and we didn't have anyone give a presentation. although one participant was a design teacher who had started to learn blender with his students. unpromted he stood up and shared what he had already learned about all the keyboard shortcuts. we had a great time and everyone learned something.

mungoid 7y ago

I see a ton of people talk about how difficult blender is/was to use, but what I found funny is some of those same people use VIM.. Blender took me almost the exact same amount of time to learn as 3ds, but honestly once I got used to blender, I actually find 3ds harder and more confusing to use and actually changed a bunch of keybindings to more closely match blender.

_bxg1 7y ago
Yep. Blender is impossible to use without instruction, but once you learn it it's perfectly usable.
- iamcreasy 7y ago
  I think they started improving the UI with version 2.5, and now with the 2.8 release the UI is very user friendly. I still find the undo stack confusing sometimes.

kodablah 7y ago

Blender is free[×], forever [×] subject to terms and conditions, restrictions, our definition of the word free, and what we allow you to do with it even after you receive it

nurettin 7y ago

They give away code, but place restrictions on using it. When did we become so vile?

Koshkin 7y ago

Information comes in different forms, and I am not quite sure why software is considered speech (and must, therefore, be free), but, say, schematics of an industrial electronic device or the blueprint of an airplane is not.

ralph84 7y ago
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.
- Koshkin 7y ago
  "everyone" has bookshelves; should books be free, then?
  - ralph84 7y ago
    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.

pvaldes 7y ago

Obviously, as it was since 20 years ago. This question was being answered and clear a lot of time ago. After buying books about blender, spending many hours and trying to learn it, I personally find that is still a big pain to use it, but this is a different question (and we can't blame propietary software for it; can we?). The real problem with blender is not if is free software or not, IMHO. Maybe Blender is the next low hanging fruit in the eyes of "put big company here". A clon provided with a few buttons here and there, some money for marketing and voilá, "we invented this zuppa-new thing that is great". Has happened before.

rocky1138 7y ago
What you're suggesting is what happened to MySQL. Oracle bought it and the community forked the last pre-Oracle version to a new project, MariaDB, where everyone continues on as before.
- pvaldes 7y ago
  This is the normal way when a program was widely accepted and has a lot of legacy code around that needs to be maintained. This is not the case with blender. I remember when skype, or the germ of whatssap, were born, nurtured and developped in Linux. We don't have any good alternative to skype nowadays. Nobody remembers skype as open source. Blender interface was ridiculously hard to grasp for a newbie and as result, it looks still like a minoritary arcane software. I'm not in the community and could be wrong, but seen from outside it seems that blender is still struggling to be widely known or adopted. Twelve years had passed after "Big Buck Bunny" and blender seems to have problems still to attract new users (or it moves in a very closed circle).
  - xfer 7y ago
    Yeah nice comparison to a single user software to a social networking application.

tmaly 7y ago

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.

em-bee 7y ago
the next major version is supposed to have a much improved UI

ohiovr 7y ago

Not only is Blender free but there is a huge amount of incredibly high quality stock content that is creative commons too like blendswap.com

shafyy 7y ago

Without Blender we probably couldn't have started to develop our VR app as a small startup. Also, Ton seems to be genuinely nice and super funny guy.

dorena 7y ago

I‘m using blender every day and absolutely love it. the fact that it’s run by such a genuine and inspirational guy like Ton makes me like blender even more :) if you want to know more about him and his plan for Blender watch this interview https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qJEWOTZnFeg&vl=en https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qJEWOTZnFeg&vl=en or the tour of their new office (it’s really funny) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkKPXn6QBx8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkKPXn6QBx8

eps 7y ago

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 subject to Blender's GPL clause it should be sufficient to have an alternative implementation of Blender's API. This, incidentally, will also validate addons against GPL criteria for "derived software" - whether the code in question can or cannot function without GPL-licensed software. If it can, then it's not a derived work and not a subject to GPL terms. The only way for Blender to prevent commercial addons (which is ultimately what their actions amount to) is to explicitly prohibit that in their license.

traverseda 7y ago
Sure, once there's a some-other-license re-implementation of blender it's fair game. Pretty sure there isn't one though?
- anchpop 7y ago
  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?

_pmf_ 7y ago

What motivated this post? The general licensing discussiin regarding SaaS appropriation by large players or something specific to Blender?

protomikron 7y ago

Blender is a great piece of software and I appreciate their choice of license (GPL). Obviously the GPL put a lot of thought in the development of their licenses and it's important for software developers to know about the subtle differences. With AGPL they try to close the loophole that companies use to build a network layer around GPL licensed code. AFAIK if you link to GPL your work is "derived", so you have to open it which is not the case if used "over the network". I wonder if AGPL should be considered a secret weapon against the big SaaS companies. On HN I read that GPL and especially AGPL software/libraries are a no-go for some of these companies, but maybe this can be a feature for small players?

didibus 7y ago

Does Blender make any money? Are the developers compensated? I've always had a kind of conflicting perspective, as a developer myself, I enjoy the vibrant exchange of information and source which is open and often free and even "gratis". It has helped me grow and learn, it empowers me to be more productive as I can leverage a lot of existing code. That said, it also often worries me that the culture isn't willing to pay for a lot of these, since being a developer is also my profession. If we get users used to not paying for software, and developers willing to work for free, does it devalue the job of developer? For example, I often wonder, if there was only proprietary software, would developer salaries be even higher? Would there be more devs who are small businesses, one to 3 man teams, working on software like grep, 7zip, calendars, todos, calculators, etc. ? As it seems, open source, especially the licenses which have the side effect of being mostly "gratis" forces the market into offering a service or product which isn't the software itself. Which is why a lot of devs can't make a living of being a small business, we need to be employed by bigger companies who offer collateral products or services.

sfink 7y ago
The direct financial impact is one thing to consider. But another is... I'll describe it as capability, complexity, and progress. The ability for developers to build on each other's stuff is hugely significant. Otherwise, every company reimplements the same stuff, and even for what they buy, the standard (and interoperable) solution that the industry settles on and is thus able to advance further, is determined by the vagaries of business: pricing, approach, market segmentation, lockin strategy, leaders' whims, etc. Quality factors in there somewhere. As a prominent CEO once said, "We're not here to write excellent software. We're here to write software that's better than our competitors'." Free software is more important at the foundational levels, because the virtuous cycle of endless improvement raises the baseline for everyone over time. For those of us whose livelihoods depend on software salaries, it cuts both ways. We can't get paid for writing grep, but we also don't have to spend our careers rewriting grep over and over again at different companies.

nerd7473 7y ago

Blender is one of those projects that even people who aren't into FOSS have at least heard of. It's pretty nifty!

cdnsteve 7y ago

How cool is this, Python! "Blender has a flexible Python controlled interface. Layout, colors, size and even fonts can be adjusted. Use hundreds of add-ons by the community or create your own using Blender’s accessible Python API."

stockkid 7y ago

> The GPL has often be called infectious ... Proprietary code is infectious in ways too (try to use proprietary code in your work and face the consequences). I don't think the comparison is fair. The reason is that use of proprietary code does not necessarily convert an entire codebase's license into that of the proprietary software. On the other hand, GPL's terms insist that the client code be released under the same term.

rolltiide 7y ago

I know how Foundations and Donor Advised Funds make their decisions, people that aspire to support open source don't have the discretion over the foundation funds to do so.

captainmarble 7y ago

Python was once an underdog looking up to java, now python stand shoulder to shoulder next to java. Only a matter of time for blender i guess.