It actually is permitted by the lisence, so it is legally impossible.
What is not acceptable is that we have users who are suffering, after having invested years with blender, without improvements in many fields, having to go crying to implement something as stupid as a weld modifier only for someone to think he is a better person because he defends the GPL instead of other OpenSource license.
I am suggesting to build upon available open soruce software to make this feature happen within the open source environment, and as I have stated. this does not mean starting from scratch, because I can start on a open source environment.
And I wouldt very much like to be able to build upon existing hair dynamics code, but I canāt because most of it is proprietary.
And I see, that you as an artist do not care about copyright of code. But developers of code care about it. And some use proprietary lisencing to protect their work and some use open source lisencing to protect it.
If what we are asking for is that the authors of the code give their consent. Stop being offended because we ask to change the license GPL to LGPL, BSD or MIT.
But all of this I can also say about Max and Maya as well. And currently I see more progress being made in blender to be honest. The diffreence being those tools did not only cost you years of time, but also tons of money.
And having had a brief look at the weld modifiers functionaity I think itās funcionality is implemented in blender using the Data transfer modifier.
I think it is offensive to ask someone, who has given you decades worth of work for free, to lower their prices even more.
1 Like
I agree that the open source licensing is a form of protection, but it protects the software (the written code), not the ātechnologyā ā i.e. the technique & research behind it.
This is what drives proprietary developers away, that someone will read and reverse-engineer their technology, and then rewrite on their own to circumvent the open-source license.
Well, itās your impression, for me a developer should be proud and happy that millions of users want to use his program, that private companies want to use it. And donāt prevent that from happening yourself just because of a phrase in a license.
That appear that we are asking that blender is closed code, that someone can sell it, that no one can use it for free ā¦ We are only asking for a solution to what people who need to EAT in exchange for their work can contribute to blender. And do not live only from people who have free time.
Canāt speak for everyone, but quite a number of people pay for their food with money they make from contributing to Blender. Itās just a different system in the open source world -some business models donāt work in that environment, others do.
2 Likes
Letās just agree: lisences are a way to protect your work and each vomes with pros and cons towards developers, companies and users.
And Blender is not going to change itās as likely as maya will.
The Blender Foundation is clearly not open to do that move.
Just like there are advantages, there would also be disadvantages and risks. One risk is that there could be fewer volunteer developers or volunteers in general. Some might start to develop paid addons, other would leave because they didnāt sign up for this kind of ecosystem in the first place.
In the worst case, users may have to rely on paid addons, locking some out. This is very different from the situation we have right now and clearly against the stated goals of the Blender Foundation.
1 Like
How many people selling addons have a real salary with blender? I doubt that the number exced 50 people.
Is the same risk that that people find a job in one of the millions of offers for programmers and stop working in blender. That logic is like tell that people will stop to do blender free tutorials because the GPL not obligate tutorial makers to put free the tutorials.
But not, blender had hundreds of pay tutorials and thousand of free tutorials.
The actual situation is that I need to pay for the UV packer, for the remesher, for the Fluid simulation and other 30 plugins that I use. But also I need to pay for substance, max, maya,ā¦ because I cant use that solutions in blender.Ā“
Selling add-ons is not a great business model in this area. However, writing direct code contributions can very well be.
This is similar to Linux development - nobody got rich by writing and selling a kernel module on their own, but you can make a decent income writing kernel drivers for hardware manufacturers.
The same is how Blender got its Principled BSDF or OptiX support - those were written by in-house developers who were paid by their respective employers to contribute code to Blender.
1 Like
How much developers have a paid work to improve blender? less than addons creators.
If contribute in blender was a business then we have not this discussion
Then I donāt understand what youāre trying to tell me here - that add-ons are a viable business model for Blender as is, at least more promising than being a paid contributor?
If contribute in blender was a business then we have not this discussion
Again, I canāt speak for everyone, but quite a number of the main contributors get paid for what they do. And Iām sure that there are developers inside companies using Blender who modify Blender to their needs as part of their paid employment.
1 Like
No, I say that it is currently very difficult for blender to be a business model for anyone, only for those who create something with blender, such as artists. Even for the Blender Foundation. And that allowing third-party plugins to protect the work of those developers, the blender market would multiply and also the developers who would like to work in blender.
And since it is not a zero-sum game although there would be more private tools there would also be many more free and open source tools. So actually the users of blender and blender itself would be more reinforced.
If you made paid closed source addon development a very profitable business overnight, do you think core Blender would still receive the same contributions as it is doing now? Or could it happen that a number of developers turn what would have become free features for everyone into features that are only available to paying customers? What if Blender then experiences a ābrain drainā where no new features come to Blender itself any more and all new features cost you $99 each? If this had happened 10 years ago, would we even have Cycles and Eevee in Blender or would Brecht and Clement have opened a profitable business instead?
Yes, this is pure speculation - much like everything else in this thread. 
2 Likes
But we talk about ridiculous numbers compared to any company. Any company in this industry has 100-300 employees and hundreds of millions of billing.
They clearly need to be able to incorporate proprietary technologies now, and not wait 4 years for their developer to implement it or 10 years for someone inside the foundation to implement it.
I wish. If this were the case, Iād be still working for one of those companies. Yes, you see big fish like Adobe and Autodesk buying up competitors left and right, but there are countless companies struggling or just completely disappearing for financial reasons.
There was a time when 3D was not just Max and Maya, you had Amapi, Real3D, Carrara, project:Messiah, Pixels3D, Hash:AM, etc competing for business. Yes, many of these still are for purchase on web pages that havenāt seen updates in years, but Iād bet most can barely cover costs these days.