Don’t you get bored that the only thing you tell is that it’s impossible because that’s how you consider it and that there’s no need to debate anything and whoever wants it to go away?
Don’t you get bored that the only thing you tell is that it’s impossible because that’s how you consider it and that there’s no need to debate anything and whoever wants it to go away?
I lack the time to babysit yet another license thread, so let this be the first and final warning if i see one more personal attack i’m closing this thread.
For me, right now, contributing to blender source feels similar to volunteering to help out a charity in the work of cleaning up a local river.
So lets do a “Man in the High Castle”-like mental exercise and pretend that blender changed its license five years ago to one you prefer. Yeah, commercial plugins now work!
But there is now two versions at blender.org: one free (but useless) one, and another that you can pay for with many more features. And the “big studios” don’t use either, but instead use a closed commercial fork from a few years ago that nobody else can afford.
Do I want to volunteer now? Nope. Instead of volunteering to clean that river it now feels like working for free for a company that is getting paid to do that work. LOL
2 Likes
I didn’t attack nobody.
And if responding to the one who says “if I don’t like it then don’t use blender” is an attack, then close the thread.
Nobody have ask for that.
I don’t know why I keep repeating this so many times when no one’s asked for it.
With changes of license these changes happen regardless of whether anyone asks for them or not.
The license only change the possibility of made a new way of develop plugins, not blender foundation. Actually blender have commercial plugins, also closed source plugins with bridges with other apps.
No, it is a real solution that’s working for many people right now. That how E-Cycles or the builds on graphicall allow people to work with code improvements without having to wait for them to pass review.
It’s irreal, People only use that builds like experimental and it only have one patch/branch. Normally is only the same 3-4 builds (manta flow, animation, functions and some GSOC). Sometimes somebody build a version with more patches but the way is hard to maintain something like this, also form user POV where you must to work with a stable version.
Then what would your solution be?
Essentially Blender needs an API that allows people to create plugins that integrate with Blender at almost all levels and with good performance. Not that a modifier has to be a branch/diff and go through the whole approval process that also only overloads the developers.
Which is also something positive for developers, who can focus on developing, fixing, managing, … and not have an overload of checking all the code that is written. Someone creates a plugin or modifier and if it goes wrong is your problem and the users who want to use it, as happens with the rest of adonis Python.
In the end what happens is that almost all developments end up in the garbage after a while if they are not integrated into the master branch. An example comes to mind, the unwrap that was developed for a GSOC, a thousand times better than the current one. It is absolutely forgotten when it was almost finished. Or the famous Weld modifier that is done but for a devs decision we can’t use it in master branch.
I understand, that is an issue unrelated to licensing then.
1 Like
In reality the origin of the problem is the same although it does not seem so, the philosophy and financing model of Blender, which is a whole with the GPL and open source.
There is no need for a license change to achieve that!
it is not related to licensing. I’ve seen closed source monolithic software that use plug-in architectures internally just to keep better internal abstractions.
In the case of blender if it is a conclusion of its form of development, for different reasons. You only have to see the comments above, your own, where it is defended that being GPL each one has its branch/diff and is not necessary such an API.
Do you have access to Maya and Max’s source code to see the work being done underneath?
I’ve heared tons of complaints from users, that those tools are stagnating, I have not seen many big feature updates and there are a lot of rumors, that autodesk is currently struggeling to improve the core of 3Ds MAx due to nobody understanding, how it works.
Autodesk have problems with 3DsMAX and rumors of kill it since 15 years ago. Even so, the program continues to evolve and has all kinds of tools, but its core is dysfunctional.
The case of Maya is different, and in the last 5-6 years it has given a gigantic change at all levels. It has features that Blender doesn’t even have in the roadmap.
Blender is a great program to create assets, and animations. But if we measure it with the same hardness that we do with Maya or max… it has tremendous limitations, specially if you don’t use proprietary add-ons. It almost always implements things, but only half.
I’m under the impression that you don’t have first hand experience in software development? Any modern development team will maintain feature branches and one or the other experimental branch. Closed source commercial software has just as well their half-working in progress features, their abandoned projects and broken betas. Just because you see only one streamlined linear release path in the outside, doesn’t mean that it can’t be organic on the inside.
Also, it is futile to speculate about what “the core” of other programs look like. There can be new, beautifully engineered readable code that is riddled with bugs just as there can be rock stable software with source code that’s just a garbled mess.