4 ms·

Resolve is built by a fairly small team in s/Australia/Singapore. If you want the features in the Studio version, you just need to buy once, you get a lifetime

by dannyw 5y ago

Resolve is built by a fairly small team in s/Australia/Singapore. If you want the features in the Studio version, you just need to buy once, you get a lifetime of updates, no subscription. Ideologically I love to use FOSS products too, but I also want to support commercial businesses that make software under customer-friendly and non-subscription licensing terms.

rglullis 5y ago
If we look at Blender's history, one could make the argument that they would get more support if they fully opened their product. I for one would contribute to get a Libre Resolve, even if I am not a videographer.
- capableweb 5y ago
  > If we look at Blender's history, one could make the argument that they would get more support if they fully opened their product. I think it's important to know that Blender probably became big because they went open source with a nice tool, not that they were big before and then released the source as open source. If Blender didn't go open source, I'm unsure if Blender would even be around today, they were in big trouble before buying the source code back and open sourcing it, if I remember the history correct. DaVinci is not in trouble in any meaning of the word, the opposite. The editor is taking the media sector by storm and gaining popularity like crazy, so they don't have the same need of doing something drastic to save themselves. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for DaVinci to end up open source, but I don't think Blenders history is relevant in this particular case.
  - Shadonototra 5y ago
    being open doesn't mean it becomes free to use, you can still sell your licenses https://www.aseprite.org/ https://www.aseprite.org/ successful product, and is open source: https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite there are many examples like that being open source allows your users to participate in the development, fixing things, and adding new features the company wouldn't have done themselves because: lack of budget, or "too risky" this is why i dropped Sublime Text for a different editor, i was waiting years for them to fix a feature that annoy me so bad (file preview when you search), and it still not fixed, closed source mean i can't do shit i no longer use proprietary software for that reason, whenever possible i decide to use one that is open source also the industry adopting Blender is a clear sign that a product being open source plays a big role for adoption same for game engines, people preferred open source solutions for decades, the closed proprietary ones all died (minus Unity but they provide source in exchange for a license, wich i believe will be made fully open in few years, they will have no choice) for existing business it is understandable if they started closed, and use themselves licensed code/product but for new businesses, if you don't consider open source, you start with a massive disadvantage, worse, it makes you impossible to grow
    - nsomaru 5y ago
      I’m curious why you say Unity will have no choice but to go open source?
      - Shadonototra 5y ago
        it already is happening (kinda), they are modularizing their engine, and all the new parts are made open source biggest part what their graphics stack https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/Graphics https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/Graphics (only the scripting part) competition is growing, unreal is fully open source, and more and more people have been asking for the source, there was even some drama few years ago when unity DMCA'd (if i remember correctly) a reference source code of unity engine (decompiled) on github, then unity made it officially available on their github: https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/UnityCsReference https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/UnityCsReference after users complained about it wich already proved effective and caused them to fix a huge performance issue shortly after: https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/UnityCsReference/pull/1 https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/UnityCsReference/pull/...
        gernb 5y ago
        unreal is not "open source". "open source" has a specific meaning and Unreal doesn't fit. Some people call unreal "source available" https://www.google.com/search?q=open+source+definition https://www.google.com/search?q=open+source+definition
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - pabs3 5y ago
      aseprite isn't under an "Open Source" license, but a EULA that even prohibits redistribution. I'd call it "shared source" or "public source" rather than "open source" https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/blob/main/EULA.txt https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/blob/main/EULA.txt
    - 5y ago
- alpaca128 5y ago
  For every Blender we have countless other projects getting almost zero donations or support. Why take that risk if the current model works for the Resolve team?
  - rglullis 5y ago
    Blender made their opening conditional on getting support. They basically ran a crowdfunding campaign that said they would open source it when they reached X amount of money. (I think it was 500k€ at the time) that was good not just financially but also because it worked as a marketing/awareness tool. BMD could do is something similar. They could make every (yearly?) release closed but GPL it once their revenue hits a mark.
    - therouwboat 5y ago
      They had to buy rights from investors and it was 110k eur. https://www.blender.org/about/history/ https://www.blender.org/about/history/
      - rglullis 5y ago
        Yeah, thanks for the correction. I totally misremembered the order of events (I thought they were still open as a business when they created the foundation) and amounts.
  - blagie 5y ago
    From my perspective, if a product is open source, it means I'm not at the whims of a company which might or might not go under or change models. I have huge amounts of content from decades ago locked up under no-longer-existing proprietary formats. The companies long went out of business, activation servers are gone, and in most cases, there's no way to find the .exe files. My LaTeX files still work. Open source doesn't mean I won't pay for it. Indeed, I'm more likely to pay for it. I think in the case of Resolv, if the bulk of the money is on software, open source is a huge risk. If it's on hardware, it's a nominal risk and a huge potential upside. To the extent there are cloud-based collaboration services, the risk also goes down, since that's what most businesses pay for. Even if the server is open-source, it's cheaper and more robust to pay BM than to hire a sys-admin to run it myself. I have an old Olympus AIR camera which is great hardware, now useless since Olympus discontinued the associated software, then got sold, and it's basically now dead. If Blackmagic were 100% open source, I'd know their hardware is forever. Perhaps the software won't continue to improve -- there are plenty of dead projects -- but SOME nerd will at least port the existing functionality to Ubuntu 32.04 or whatever comes out. If push comes to shove, I might even be that nerd.
AussieWog93 5y ago
>Resolve is built by a fairly small team in Australia. I used to work at BMD in the BRAW team. With a few exceptions here and there, Resolve is pretty much exclusively maintained by a team up in Singapore. They are quite a small group, though!
ngcc_hk 5y ago
s/Australia/Singapore …

by dannyw 5y ago

rglullis 5y ago

If we look at Blender's history, one could make the argument that they would get more support if they fully opened their product. I for one would contribute to get a Libre Resolve, even if I am not a videographer.

capableweb 5y ago
> If we look at Blender's history, one could make the argument that they would get more support if they fully opened their product. I think it's important to know that Blender probably became big because they went open source with a nice tool, not that they were big before and then released the source as open source. If Blender didn't go open source, I'm unsure if Blender would even be around today, they were in big trouble before buying the source code back and open sourcing it, if I remember the history correct. DaVinci is not in trouble in any meaning of the word, the opposite. The editor is taking the media sector by storm and gaining popularity like crazy, so they don't have the same need of doing something drastic to save themselves. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for DaVinci to end up open source, but I don't think Blenders history is relevant in this particular case.
- Shadonototra 5y ago
  being open doesn't mean it becomes free to use, you can still sell your licenses https://www.aseprite.org/ https://www.aseprite.org/ successful product, and is open source: https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite there are many examples like that being open source allows your users to participate in the development, fixing things, and adding new features the company wouldn't have done themselves because: lack of budget, or "too risky" this is why i dropped Sublime Text for a different editor, i was waiting years for them to fix a feature that annoy me so bad (file preview when you search), and it still not fixed, closed source mean i can't do shit i no longer use proprietary software for that reason, whenever possible i decide to use one that is open source also the industry adopting Blender is a clear sign that a product being open source plays a big role for adoption same for game engines, people preferred open source solutions for decades, the closed proprietary ones all died (minus Unity but they provide source in exchange for a license, wich i believe will be made fully open in few years, they will have no choice) for existing business it is understandable if they started closed, and use themselves licensed code/product but for new businesses, if you don't consider open source, you start with a massive disadvantage, worse, it makes you impossible to grow
  - nsomaru 5y ago
    I’m curious why you say Unity will have no choice but to go open source?
    - Shadonototra 5y ago
      it already is happening (kinda), they are modularizing their engine, and all the new parts are made open source biggest part what their graphics stack https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/Graphics https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/Graphics (only the scripting part) competition is growing, unreal is fully open source, and more and more people have been asking for the source, there was even some drama few years ago when unity DMCA'd (if i remember correctly) a reference source code of unity engine (decompiled) on github, then unity made it officially available on their github: https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/UnityCsReference https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/UnityCsReference after users complained about it wich already proved effective and caused them to fix a huge performance issue shortly after: https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/UnityCsReference/pull/1 https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/UnityCsReference/pull/...
      - gernb 5y ago
        unreal is not "open source". "open source" has a specific meaning and Unreal doesn't fit. Some people call unreal "source available" https://www.google.com/search?q=open+source+definition https://www.google.com/search?q=open+source+definition
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - pabs3 5y ago
    aseprite isn't under an "Open Source" license, but a EULA that even prohibits redistribution. I'd call it "shared source" or "public source" rather than "open source" https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/blob/main/EULA.txt https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/blob/main/EULA.txt
  - 5y ago
alpaca128 5y ago
For every Blender we have countless other projects getting almost zero donations or support. Why take that risk if the current model works for the Resolve team?
- rglullis 5y ago
  Blender made their opening conditional on getting support. They basically ran a crowdfunding campaign that said they would open source it when they reached X amount of money. (I think it was 500k€ at the time) that was good not just financially but also because it worked as a marketing/awareness tool. BMD could do is something similar. They could make every (yearly?) release closed but GPL it once their revenue hits a mark.
  - therouwboat 5y ago
    They had to buy rights from investors and it was 110k eur. https://www.blender.org/about/history/ https://www.blender.org/about/history/
    - rglullis 5y ago
      Yeah, thanks for the correction. I totally misremembered the order of events (I thought they were still open as a business when they created the foundation) and amounts.
- blagie 5y ago
  From my perspective, if a product is open source, it means I'm not at the whims of a company which might or might not go under or change models. I have huge amounts of content from decades ago locked up under no-longer-existing proprietary formats. The companies long went out of business, activation servers are gone, and in most cases, there's no way to find the .exe files. My LaTeX files still work. Open source doesn't mean I won't pay for it. Indeed, I'm more likely to pay for it. I think in the case of Resolv, if the bulk of the money is on software, open source is a huge risk. If it's on hardware, it's a nominal risk and a huge potential upside. To the extent there are cloud-based collaboration services, the risk also goes down, since that's what most businesses pay for. Even if the server is open-source, it's cheaper and more robust to pay BM than to hire a sys-admin to run it myself. I have an old Olympus AIR camera which is great hardware, now useless since Olympus discontinued the associated software, then got sold, and it's basically now dead. If Blackmagic were 100% open source, I'd know their hardware is forever. Perhaps the software won't continue to improve -- there are plenty of dead projects -- but SOME nerd will at least port the existing functionality to Ubuntu 32.04 or whatever comes out. If push comes to shove, I might even be that nerd.

AussieWog93 5y ago

>Resolve is built by a fairly small team in Australia. I used to work at BMD in the BRAW team. With a few exceptions here and there, Resolve is pretty much exclusively maintained by a team up in Singapore. They are quite a small group, though!

ngcc_hk 5y ago

s/Australia/Singapore …