Please tone it down, this kind of heated discussion is not helpful at all.
2 Likes
I am not tolerating any further personal attacks, please talk about things in a constructive and respectful manner.
3 Likes
Well, this checkbox does exactly what it said on the tin. It does not autorun embedded python scripts in .blend files. Imo itâs not reasonable for the user to expect this to also prevent addons from running python scripts. An addon is a python script, so if it canât run thatâs basically the same as not enabling the addon.
Furthermore I think the worries about the wording accompanying the checkbox are somewhat warranted. And I also think all the hot tempered people should tone down the hyberbole a bit since it is not helpful in getting anything useful done. It would be much more useful to iterate on possible better texts for the checkbox then all those angry words. People act like blender here has sold out to facebook or something like that while the only new âproblemâ is a small tweak to the user interface text.
I do think this whole discussion has the useful side effect of educating a lot of users that add-ons can do anything they like, and maybe that should be advertized more prominently in the addon UI. Though itâs imo also common sense to assume any executable code downloaded from the internet has this property.
2 Likes
Campbell said it âmayâ be rephrased. My point is, hidden posts notwithstanding, that it must be rephrased to be legally compliant
1 Like
âCompletelyâ misleading is being a little much, which is fine. People misunderstand settings all the time, and their capabilities to do things they were never intended to do. Reword things to avoid this as much as is reasonable. At this point I guess Iâm saying two things now. No reason to be dramatic over Blender ending lawsuits. And then now, the type of person who would try to do such a thing, is incapable of being any other way. Theyâll find a reason to sue somebody.
It does not. The checkbox says âAllow Online Accessâ.
If unchecked, can an extension access something online? If yes, then the label on the tin is wrong.
Imo itâs not reasonable for the user to expect this to also prevent addons from running python scripts.
Consider the situation from the perspective of a user who is not intimately familiar with what python can do, within Blender.
2 Likes
This post was in reply to a post about a completely different checkbox. The âallow embedded python scriptsâ checkbox.
Letâs stop discussing that checkbox as well, because it gets confusing enough already 
The point has been made about the current functionality. I will look at the tooltip tomorrow, given that is not clear enough to some people. Thanks for the pointers.
Now to re-iterate over a few points:
- The functionality itself is not changing - it is a guideline and up to add-on developers to follow. It is explained in the documentation.
- If you see an extension which is not following this, please direct the author to the documentation. All extensions on the Blender extensions platform are supposed to follow this.
Now on the quality of the discussion:
- Feedback is welcome, but should be framed in a constructive way:
- Iâm deeply interested on how the current design affect your workflow. This is something very concrete we can work together.
- What you think is better for Blender at large is more opiniated and less actionable. It is better to make it about you, the problems you are facing, how you workaround it, and maybe which solutions could help, and what they would impact your work/life.
- If a design decision is not clear to you, I will be happy to clarify it.
- That doesnât mean we will all agree though, and I (or the team) reserve the right to weight the different feedbacks and act on them as we seem fit.
- Non-constructive feedback and some of the attitude that is surfacing here is getting on the way of development. I personally feel less inclined to respond to the feedbacks if it means having to deal with this. So again, please be considerate.
30 Likes
Very nice 
- rename the description in the UI
- explicitly explain extensions can do online what they want and the Blender settings canât enforce anything considering extensions
1 Like
Symlinks do work, you see âMissing add-onsâ message because add-on id is changed in 4.2, so the add-on has to be re-enabled.
1 Like
I donât expect developers to act like lawyers (or whatever theyâre called elsewhere), but I think we all have reason to expect that in their work (which some of our donations have paid for, those who get paid) as developers theyâll do their best to have Blender obey all appropriate/relevant laws and avoid civil litigation (however difficult that can be globally).
Somebody posts that the behavior (even a tiny bit of the behavior) of Blenderâs alpha/beta versions is violating law/s, or is lawsuit bait, etc, I donât expect the devs to immediately voice legal opinions, thatâs not their job. I do expect that legit legal advice will be sought out by them and their colleagues as quickly as feasible, and any posts from them will not cast doubt that this is of course being done.
Weâre none of us perfect. Weâre from different countries, translating from different languages to post here, different cultures, different neurotypes, etc, misunderstandings are inevitable. I would hope that the need for clarifications (for example, of âmay need to be re-wordedâ when the wording cited is dangerous) are taken in good faith.
(IANAL/TINLA again.)
2 Likes
Thanks for the response, I should probably have clarified; Iâve updated the addon to be an extension, and symlinked it into the new extensions/user_default directory. There is no other version installed, so itâs not to do with the id changing. The addon does not appear in the addon list, so I canât enable it, it only shows up in the missing warningâŚ
Does it show up if you manually copy add-on directory in extensions/user_default folder?
Ah, I think I see partly whatâs happening. Iâve been using the vscode extension to start blender, which automatically enables the addon (prompting the missing message when it canât find it). However, when I start it normally, there is no missing error, but the addon isnât in the list either.
I assume there must be some list of addons in a file somewhere that also needs to be modified for it to be visible? It works when I install it from a zip file.
Look for an option to refresh/update the local repo. Hereâs how I got it working back in March (might have changed though).
You put add-on dir inside extension folderâthatâs how it works.
There are no other files/settings that needs to be modified. Check both Get Extensions and Add-ons preferences tabs for your add-on.
If you still cannot find your add-on in preferences after manually copying add-on dir inside extensions folder, then submit a bug report.
Thanks for the link, I got it working now 
@Mikhail_Rachinskiy Thanks as well!
When working in a team itâs not my place to make definitive statements about changes others need to agree on. There is also a limit to how many details should be included in tool-tips.
Personally I appreciate when applications include descriptive text, even a paragraph explaining whatâs going on (when called for). The convention Blender tends to use is to keep descriptions short and leave the details for the reference manual. Anyway, I agree with the concern and think this is a case where a more concise description is warranted.
5 Likes
Referring to this:
Somebody posts that the behavior (even a tiny bit of the behavior) of Blenderâs alpha/beta versions is violating law/s, or is lawsuit bait, etc, I donât expect the devs to immediately voice legal opinions, thatâs not their job. I do expect that legit legal advice will be sought out by them and their colleagues as quickly as feasible, and any posts from them will not cast doubt that this is of course being done.
I do not expect developers to seek legal advice in cases like this. They can inform the Foundation board though if they consider it to be a serious topic. In the past Iâve asked for legal advice only a few times, my usual stance is that I stay away from lawyers. Lawyers should talk to other lawyers. We should be able to handle things based on good practices, as a public open source project that follows principles as laid out by the Free Software movement already for over 20 years.
14 Likes
With the deepest respect for everything youâve done for the last 20+ years, Iâm reminded of the story 'bout the farmer whose old horse dropped dead. âNever did that before!â Variations on âweâve been doing fine this way for decades, no need to worryâ will not protect Blender and its interactions with the new Extensions Platform from running afoul of recent laws (Iâm thinking of the anti-disinformation parts of the EUâs Digital Services Act of 2022, but there are others that could apply, and again I am not a lawyer / this is not legal advice ).
Iâm profoundly disheartened to learn that Blenderâs development teams are not following current best practices in this regard.
My communications deficits may be preventing me from threading the needle between wording this strongly enough and soft-peddling it enough to be palatable, but: THIS SHOULD BE ONE OF THOSE TIMES! If not you, someone in the organization should be getting appropriate legal advice on this implementation. The fix is almost certainly little more than compliant wording on allow-access checkboxes. I must strongly recommend that appropriate legal advice be sought and followed.
1 Like