6 ms·

That's a strange conclusion to reach. The GPL license is actually a major problem with Blender. Importing and exporting content from artist tools is a huge head

That's a strange conclusion to reach. The GPL license is actually a major problem with Blender. Importing and exporting content from artist tools is a huge headache. The Autodesk FBX file format and SDK have largely solved those issues. It's a phenominal interchange format and most professional tools support it out of the box. Just drag and drop. It's wonderful. Blender does not and will not have official FBX support because of the GPL. That's unfortunate and actively harms users. Providing support for user generated content is a lot of work. Trying to support Blender is extremely painful and adds to that pile of work. I'd argue that one of the single biggest issues with Blender right now is it's GPL license. http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/User:Ton/Autodesk_FBX_EULA http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/User:Ton/Autodesk_FBX_EULA

Dylan16807 13y ago
Why can't they make the user download it? And possibly adjust how the linking works to avoid issues.
nijk 13y ago
Read the link you posted. The problem is with FBX's restrictive license.
reedlaw 13y ago
I wouldn't say in this case that the problem lies with Blender's choice of the GPL, but rather with Autodesk's FBX license. The FBX license is much more restrictive and onerous than the GPL. Whether GPL is freer than BSD-style licenses or not is debatable, but it certainly respects the user's freedom far more than Autodesk's "Evaluation License" with "Permitted Number equal to one".
- AdrianRossouw 13y ago
  even LGPL would have been preferable.
  - drdaeman 13y ago
    Oh, and licenseless download-and-"what license?"-type warez seems to be the most wholeheartedly welcomed option with the general crowd. Free Software's there for a reason. Let's not forget that. And if we stick to that (i.e. not trade freedom to whatever feels comfortable at the moment), there's a good reason to not use LGPL instead of GPL: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
- comex 13y ago
  Yeah. "Releasing" a file format as a restrictive binary SDK rather than actually documenting the format is a really weird and aggressive thing to do, and is very much Autodesk's fault rather than Blender's, even if you ignore the issues with platforms for which the binary might not be available. On the other hand, the format does not appear to actually be that complicated, so integrating the SDK probably wouldn't save that much programming time compared to just reimplementing it.
  - forrestthewoods 13y ago
    Blame whichever license you want. It doesn't matter. Let's say it is Autodesk's fault and they don't care. Now what? Blender is the tool that's a pain in the ass to use so the onus is on them to make their tool not suck. Meanwhile the rest of the world will continue to use FBX because it's an awesome format to work with.
    - k__ 13y ago
      lol You are the one who was all "GPL hurtz dem users!!" You're probably right with your assumption that FBX is awesome, but this wasn't part of the debate.
    - StavrosK 13y ago
      "Blame the gun or the guy who died for not having a steel skeleton, it doesn't matter. The guy is the one who's dead, the gun is fine. The onus is on guys to not die."
      - andrewflnr 13y ago
        If we're going to make this analogy work, the guy who died could have easily worn a bullet-proof vest or avoided getting in the fight at all.
        if_by_whisky 13y ago
        Or he could have picked a different software license.
buovjaga 13y ago
http://code.blender.org/index.php/2013/08/fbx-binary-file-format-specification/ http://code.blender.org/index.php/2013/08/fbx-binary-file-fo... Blender’s next release (2.69) will support binary FBX file reading as well.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- dtf 13y ago
  If that's all the docs they have, they might have a long way to go. FBX is a pretty huge spec. I find it hard enough understanding the SDK docs.
belorn 13y ago
Someone please correct me, but isn't the FBX SDK a proprietary licensed software? If blender want to redistribute Autodesk software, they would need a license. The FBX SDK looks to be under a restrictive, individual, non-transferable and non-shareable license which also expires after 30 days. That would make any redistributing of said Autodesk software a crime (copyright infringement). The only way blender could legally give users access to the proprietary FBX SDK, is to provide a download mechanism where users themselves download and agrees to the license, and then have their software being disabled after 30 days. So I must ask, what does this have to do with GPL? It would still be equally impossible under BSD, MIT, or add-your-own-license-here license.
ris 13y ago
"The Autodesk FBX file format and SDK have largely solved those issues. It's a phenominal interchange format and most professional tools support it out of the box. Just drag and drop. It's wonderful." Really? To me it looks like what Autodesk have managed to do is convince loads of people make their software depend on Autodesk's proprietary binary blob, which is a genius move on their part. (bet you've never seen your wonderful "just drag and drop" work on anything non-x86)

Dylan16807 13y ago

Why can't they make the user download it? And possibly adjust how the linking works to avoid issues.

nijk 13y ago

Read the link you posted. The problem is with FBX's restrictive license.

reedlaw 13y ago

I wouldn't say in this case that the problem lies with Blender's choice of the GPL, but rather with Autodesk's FBX license. The FBX license is much more restrictive and onerous than the GPL. Whether GPL is freer than BSD-style licenses or not is debatable, but it certainly respects the user's freedom far more than Autodesk's "Evaluation License" with "Permitted Number equal to one".

AdrianRossouw 13y ago
even LGPL would have been preferable.
- drdaeman 13y ago
  Oh, and licenseless download-and-"what license?"-type warez seems to be the most wholeheartedly welcomed option with the general crowd. Free Software's there for a reason. Let's not forget that. And if we stick to that (i.e. not trade freedom to whatever feels comfortable at the moment), there's a good reason to not use LGPL instead of GPL: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
comex 13y ago
Yeah. "Releasing" a file format as a restrictive binary SDK rather than actually documenting the format is a really weird and aggressive thing to do, and is very much Autodesk's fault rather than Blender's, even if you ignore the issues with platforms for which the binary might not be available. On the other hand, the format does not appear to actually be that complicated, so integrating the SDK probably wouldn't save that much programming time compared to just reimplementing it.
- forrestthewoods 13y ago
  Blame whichever license you want. It doesn't matter. Let's say it is Autodesk's fault and they don't care. Now what? Blender is the tool that's a pain in the ass to use so the onus is on them to make their tool not suck. Meanwhile the rest of the world will continue to use FBX because it's an awesome format to work with.
  - k__ 13y ago
    lol You are the one who was all "GPL hurtz dem users!!" You're probably right with your assumption that FBX is awesome, but this wasn't part of the debate.
  - StavrosK 13y ago
    "Blame the gun or the guy who died for not having a steel skeleton, it doesn't matter. The guy is the one who's dead, the gun is fine. The onus is on guys to not die."
    - andrewflnr 13y ago
      If we're going to make this analogy work, the guy who died could have easily worn a bullet-proof vest or avoided getting in the fight at all.
      - if_by_whisky 13y ago
        Or he could have picked a different software license.

buovjaga 13y ago

http://code.blender.org/index.php/2013/08/fbx-binary-file-format-specification/ http://code.blender.org/index.php/2013/08/fbx-binary-file-fo... Blender’s next release (2.69) will support binary FBX file reading as well.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dtf 13y ago
If that's all the docs they have, they might have a long way to go. FBX is a pretty huge spec. I find it hard enough understanding the SDK docs.

belorn 13y ago

Someone please correct me, but isn't the FBX SDK a proprietary licensed software? If blender want to redistribute Autodesk software, they would need a license. The FBX SDK looks to be under a restrictive, individual, non-transferable and non-shareable license which also expires after 30 days. That would make any redistributing of said Autodesk software a crime (copyright infringement). The only way blender could legally give users access to the proprietary FBX SDK, is to provide a download mechanism where users themselves download and agrees to the license, and then have their software being disabled after 30 days. So I must ask, what does this have to do with GPL? It would still be equally impossible under BSD, MIT, or add-your-own-license-here license.

ris 13y ago

"The Autodesk FBX file format and SDK have largely solved those issues. It's a phenominal interchange format and most professional tools support it out of the box. Just drag and drop. It's wonderful." Really? To me it looks like what Autodesk have managed to do is convince loads of people make their software depend on Autodesk's proprietary binary blob, which is a genius move on their part. (bet you've never seen your wonderful "just drag and drop" work on anything non-x86)