Developer.blender.org - Call for comments and participation

wasn’t Sourcehut the one that got its grade lowered by the FSF because it didn’t call linux “GNU/Linux”?

To clarify, Linux is a partly proprietary kernel and GNU+Linux is an OS. Linux-libre is a 100% free version of Linux.

Referring to the GNU+Linux operating system as “Linux” is incorrect, and as such SourceHut received a lower score in its evaluation for making this mistake.

In my opinion, being open should be a criterion, not a requirement.
I understand that there are people who think like that. I clearly disagree with it though. Yes, the openness of Blender is important, but artificially trying to make it solely rely on open software appears counterproductive to me. First, it already heavily relies on and uses proprietary software. It runs on proprietary operating systems and uses proprietary drivers.
The decision here is regarding where the development should be coordinated. From my point of view, if they were to pick a purely open solution, there would be a huge risk involved. It is likely that a lot of work would be needed just to get something that works for them. At the same time, the risk is larger they would need to switch to another platform again.
Their primary goal should be to develop Blender. If they can do it purely with open source software, perfect. If it would take a huge effort or risk to do so, it makes way more sense in my opinion to use proprietary software.

1 Like

artificially trying to make it solely rely on open [sic] software

On the contrary, Blender is free software and should be developed in freedom; any attempt to make its development rely on proprietary software would be artificial.

First, it already heavily relies on and uses proprietary software. It runs on proprietary operating systems and uses proprietary drivers.

One can run it in freedom on 100% free operating systems like Parabola; using proprietary software is optional, as it should be. I wouldn’t particularly disagree if you were to propose removing support for proprietary systems and drivers, however, because that would free up time to spend improving support for free systems and drivers.

From my point of view, if they were to pick a purely open solution, there would be a huge risk involved.

On the contrary; using a proprietary or otherwise non-freedom-respecting platform or software would be a huge risk because control and freedom is lost. In other words, the Blender project would be at the mercy of the proprietor instead of independent, free, and in control as it (largely) is at the moment.

It is likely that a lot of work would be needed just to get something that works for them.

They already did it once with the current self-hosted infrastructure setup; I trust they can migrate to a different setup.

If it would take a huge effort or risk to do so, it makes way more sense in my opinion to use proprietary software.

Using proprietary software is a risk. Why put oneself at the mercy of a proprietor?

@Ton, in the interest of securing freedom for the future of the development of Blender, I think you should weigh in.

Blender would not rely on it. If issues occurred over time due to the proprietary nature of the platform, they could just switch to something else.
From my point of view, the number one priority should be the sustainability, meaning the chance of being able to use the platform as intended in the long run. If the risk is smaller on a proprietary platform (no matter how proprietary it is), that should be the go to solution. If there is an open source solution fulfilling the requirements, even better, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

They are currently using an open source solution which was abandoned. So there is clearly a risk when relying on open source too.

1 Like

Blender would not rely on it. If issues occurred over time due to the proprietary nature of the platform, they could just switch to something else.

Ever heard of vendor lock-in?

If there is an open source [sic] solution fulfilling the requirements, even better, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

On the contrary, SourceHut is the fastest, (anecdotally) most stable, most usable (working efficiently via email) and most freedom-respecting and ethical option at the moment, aside from Savane (which I wouldn’t propose using because it’s technically inferior to SourceHut), scoring a B on the GNU ERC.
(The issues it has which I previously mentioned in other posts can be fixed relatively easily.)

They are currently using an open source [sic] solution which was abandoned. So there is clearly a risk when relying on open source [sic] too.

There is always a risk, it’s software written by humans who make mistakes after all! Imagine if the current solution were proprietary, the Blender project would have no choice but to switch away from it, but since it is free, they had the option available to fork and maintain it, which is an advantage over if it were proprietary.

Yes, not sure why it would apply here though.

Again, I believe if there is an open source solution which can be adapted to fulfill the requirements, which appears to be sustainable, that would likely be a good option.

Even if they have the choice, I don’t see it being a good usage the available resources to maintain this sort of project in the long run.

Yes, not sure why it would apply here though.

It applies because the Blender project couldn’t “just switch” if it migrated its infrastructure over to a proprietary platform. It is not always possible to export data, eg. bug reports, conversations, messages, CI scripts, etc. from such services which are designed to lock you into their infrastructure. Some even start charging money after a while, it’s a classic bait-and-switch scheme.

If the developers of such hosting sites are already so morally bankrupt that they develop proprietary software, why would you trust them to always provide a “sustainable” service, be friendly to “open source” with discounts and publicity, and not to pull stunts on you like jacking up the price? It’s blind faith or nothing, and it’s a risk the Blender project need not take.

To quote @Ton, https://nitter.kavin.rocks/tonroosendaal/status/1003610646611709957?s=20&t=mdWhDgIyrZhl47fRZOIKuQ

FYI: Blender has its code on git (dot) blender (dot) org and developer services on developer (dot) blender (dot) org - we already host our own services since 2002.

(I had to edit the quote because apparently “new users can’t post more than two links”.)

Even if they have the choice, I don’t see it being a good usage the available resources to maintain this sort of project in the long run.

I agree, but this is irrelevant. The point is that this even being an option is an advantage they would not have had if it were proprietary.

I highly doubt that this project would ever accept completely anonymous code contributions, for legal reasons. It is important to ensure that any added code is actually free software, so we need real people to sign off as such. If that is an “absolute bare minimum” requirement for you, then this project might not be a good fit for you. LOL

1 Like

What’s wrong with people using a pseudonym if they want to? Tons of other free software projects’ commit histories are full of pseudonyms and they’re fine in terms of legal troubles.

That should be easy to find yourself with a simple Google search, so no need to fill this thread with off-topic discussion of something that is irrelevant to this project. If you really think it unfair that we don’t currently accept anonymous contributions then you could always start a new topic, however fruitless that would be.

In other words: “There is no issue, but why not waste time trying to look for some?”

Free software projects have accepted contributions under pseudonyms for decades. People using a pseudonym are “real people”. There is no issue.

No, in other words this is our current policy and is therefore unrelated to the topic at hand. Start a new topic if you want to debate why Blender and the Linux Kernel do not accept anonymous contributions.

3 Likes

Okay, however the point still stands that the software and services utilised must still be usable over Tor.

Which still does work currently, though. It won’t be continued but it’s not lost or shut down from one day to the next. I think there is a difference between seeing the strong necessity to switch and being really forced to. Any proprietary plattform can be shut down or changed in its TOS at any point and make yet another switch mandatory. Look at what Autodesk did with Softimage just a few years ago (buyout, shutdown, won’t activate any more), or how Marvellous switched to a pretty restrictive subscription only one day to the next. Epic acquired Artstation and Soundcloud. Buyouts and TOS changes happen all the time and are currently way too unpredictable. I think Brecht also mentioned that they simply bring the risk that Blender could from one day to the other be forced to switch plattforms again. I completely agree here.
That is the risk with all proprietary software used. Sure, some are more at risks than others but it’s still the case. I absolutely agree that the requirement for the plattform needs to be free and open source as well.

2 Likes

I absolutely agree that the requirement for the plattform [sic] needs to be free and open source [sic] as well.

Specifically, the software the Blender project chooses to self-host needs to be free (libre), and usable by contributors without running proprietary software, including proprietary JS sent in webpages. Personally I don’t mind if it is not also “open source”, although the likelihood is that if it is one, it will also be the other, so we may as well satisfy both requirements.

1 Like
6 Likes

In case it is relevant for Blender or other projects, a community based fork of Phabricator, Phorge has been announced : announcement / HN thread.

3 Likes