What a finely tuned writing down. The funny thing is.
After all the years of happening not much on Maya and Max side
finally Blender started the impulse to change “something”. We will see.)
What a finely tuned writing down. The funny thing is.
I work in a large video game studio and management is openly welcoming a change for Blender.
At this point the studio is still mainly using max, but more and more artists are switching for blender, seems like a smooth transition to me.
I don’t know if not much changed - but for sure blender jumped forward with the new interface.
I noticed also in my class that students respond very well to 2.8.
2.5 was a nice start - 2.8 finally did it.
To me it is so impressive to see that game studios can now switch to blender.
This must feel good to Ton.
Legal team concern to me can rather be looked at from a stability and support feature. Blender does not offer the same support like Autodesk.
But then with blender you can adjust the code !!!
As I keep bringing up, there’s a difference between “can” and “reliably able to”. And then there’s re-integrating those changes in each new release. Not impossible, certainly, but the ability is something that’s overhyped.
That makes no sense unless the legal team is truly incompetent. Nothing you do in-house triggers the GPL in any way, it only activates upon distribution of GPL licensed code to a third party. Pixar, Disney, Dreamworks Animation etc all work on Linux (GPL) systems, they also have lawyers.
Hm that’s a little negative.
having access to the source code does no replace the ability have access to a support team.
While I am curious if the blender foundation offers something like this for donating members.
My point was that company’s and studious who want and have the ability can a adjust the code and expand. Look no further than people who made / make special blender builds.
E-cycles comes to my mind right now.
This means that you also need to have on staff coders who could do this.
As a 15+ year Maya user, this website listed in the OP has convinced me to continue using Blender. lol
I can save a lot of money using Blender because I do not need to pay for the “expensive” maya edition just to be able to install python addons. There’s a python addon that I use, which I would prefer to be written in Mel, but I do not get that choice… therefore, the Maya LT cheaper option does not work for me.
I very much doubt that they are incompetent, their job is to mitigate risk, and given their training they perceive an issue. If we develop against blender, we activate the GPL when we want to distribute said code to a third party. Using Linux is different in that we don’t have any need to modify it.
That’s awesome! How’re you dealing with bug fixes / feature additions?
You don’t have to modify Blender either, what are you talking about ? I’m sorry but this sounds like something you just made up. I don’t believe any ‘large studio’ is saying no to Blender due to the GPL.
Can’t speak for other places, but the ability to modify Blender as needed was essential for Next Gen. It would have been simply impossible to deliver the same output using the official Blender builds.
Yep my point
The code for the Blender builds that were used for Next Gen are in a public repository. Some of the changes were merged into the official Blender code base, others weren’t for various reasons (outdated, too specific, or because they weren’t to finished to a standard ready for submission). A handful of patches that we hope to use in the future are now already in 2.8x or the patch tracker, ahead of them being in production usage.
Ahh cool, I’ll have to dig around that repository some time. Thanks for your efforts!
Specifically, I was referring to something Jeff Bell told me a while back about the pixel displays (link below). I’ve been looking forward to see how you implemented it compared to how I went about it.
I don’t know the exact details, but I believe the shader involved this node that rasterizes curves to a texture at render time: https://github.com/tangent-devops/blender278/blob/b36b40a8b3697cd52c088434122a2ffd87b6e50d/intern/cycles/kernel/svm/svm_image.h#L539
That’s your prerogative. It doesn’t align with my experience.
Could someone please explain this to me:
Blender’s Python API is an integral part of Blender, used to define the UI or develop tools for example. The GNU GPL license therefore requires that such scripts (if published) are being shared under a GPL GPL compatible license
It sounds like the GPL even infects a studio’s scripts. Surely that cant be the case.
I don’t know what part of the industry you work in, but most studios aren’t sharing (publishing) their in house tools. So back to your original comment about large studios vetoing the use of Blender due to GPL: Incorrect, as evident by all the studios that do use it.
yeah I should have spotted that. thanks :).
so is my understanding correct.
compiled => GPL2. So if you distribute you must provide source access to third party.
script => you can freely distribute to others, but if you’re selling it you must put it under a GPL "compatible " license.
Here’s my understanding of the GPL. The goal of the license is to make sure that you can gain access to the source code of the software you use. Since we are talking about python scripts, and python is an interpreted language, by default when you share them with anyone you are sharing the source.
Also, the GPL doesn’t simply kick in if the product is sold, if you share or sell a program that is licensed under it, you are obligated to share the source in some form. The GPL compatible licenses (like the MIT license) allow access to the source, so it’s ok to share python scripts with those licenses.
With studios, since the majority don’t have a reason to release the tools they use, they never have to worry about triggering this aspect of the license, and even if they did share a tool, its a python script that anyone can modify without having to reverse engineer the code or whatever.
Compiled or script, dynamic or static linking don’t make a difference to the GPL. If it’s derived work, it must be distributed under the GPL, regardless of the technology involved.
No, that’s not what GPL compatible means.