3 ms·

> 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

> 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

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