It's nice a high profile project such as Blender speaks about freedom to push back against the "source available" movement.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
I try to say <i>libre software</i> rather than <i>Free Software</i>, and I wish the FSF would back the <i>libre</i> term fully.<p>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.<p>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.<p>(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".)
Can someone provide some context for this post?<p>Are there calls to change Blender's license?<p>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?<p>Is it just a "how dare you sell products closed source products on top of blender?"<p>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?
From the article:<p>"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!"<p>Well, then why does Blender need a development fund? [0]<p>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.<p>[0] <a href="https://fund.blender.org/" rel="nofollow">https://fund.blender.org/</a>
This argument has been going on for a while, but apparently exploded recently.<p>Im so conflicted about this. I feel like my left brain is fighting my right brain. Or mom and dad are fighting again.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Basically, I don't even know what's right anymore.
When 90% of the plugins and tutorials are available for proprietary software it’s hard to support blender.<p>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.
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..<p>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.
Wait a second.<p>Shouldn’t it be possible for someone to sell a Blender add-on but it keep it closed source and non-GPL?<p>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.<p>I’m not sure how Blender add-ons work though.
> 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).<p>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.
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 <a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qJEWOTZnFeg&vl=en" rel="nofollow">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qJEWOTZnFeg&vl=en</a>
or the tour of their new office (it’s really funny)
<a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkKPXn6QBx8" rel="nofollow">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkKPXn6QBx8</a>
> 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.<p>This is the same issue that wordpress has faced in the past, I believe - are proprietary plugins allowed to a GPLed product?
Does Blender make any money? Are the developers compensated?<p>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?<p>For example, I often wonder, if there was only proprietary software, would developer salaries be even higher?<p>Would there be more devs who are small businesses, one to 3 man teams, working on software like grep, 7zip, calendars, todos, calculators, etc. ?<p>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.
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.<p>For example, if I "publish" an API:<p><pre><code> int strlength(const char *);
</code></pre>
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.<p>Meaning that for the Blender add-ons to <i>not</i> 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.<p>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.
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.<p>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.<p>You would think with those interests Blender would be my thing but I was a generation too early and too poor.<p>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.
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".<p>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?
Obviously, as it was since 20 years ago. This question was being answered and clear a lot of time ago.<p>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?).<p>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.
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?<p>Then only the most motivated users could get it for "free"?
How cool is this, Python!<p>"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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
I really wanted to try to learn blender for 2d animation.<p>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.<p>That being said, the UI in the beta version is much improved. I am looking forward to getting better at using it.
Blender is free[×], forever<p>[×] 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