uncle_frankie has impemented Blender’s LSCM UV unwrapping as a plugin for Maya.
And the website for the plugin
He has referenced and thanked all Blender developers of this tool, which is a very cool thing.
Nice to see Blender making strides into other apps now.
BgDM
Yeah, this is pretty cool. Maybe I should pick up C++ again, and start playing with Blender? Is C++ close enough to C that I can code in both easily?
Can a GPL’d peice of code be used as part of a compiled plug-in linked against a non-free program? I assume that Maya’s plugins need to be dynamically linked to an API of some sort. Doesn’t that run afoul of the no-linking against nonfree libs clause of the GPL?
hate to be a pooper, and not that I think this is a bad idea, but, well, if we can’t use blendersymbiont (darktree engine plugin from ~1yr back) due to gpl issues, wouldn’t this cause a rather similar problem?
The GPL says that you can’t link something to a non-free program? That’s sounds stupid.
Isnt it only one way? You can’t have non-free stuff in the program, but you can put the program into non-free stuff (well, use a plugin anyway).
Plus, you could develop plugins for blender that aren’t free.
No, it is certainly not only one way.
That depends on what you mean by plugins.
Python “plugins”: yes, as those require no linking (as per the GNU definition of linking)
Texture/Sequence plugins: no, those require compiling against Blender’s plugin interface.
Martin
I a blender plugin interface library was release under another license (LGPL for example) would this still be a problem for non GPL code?
Blender has already in some areas passed Maya in some areas.
unwrapping and polygone modeling are quite faster in Maya.
also the hole aspect of modeling for game design.
i just find it so funny to see some hardcore maya students
get frustrated when I showed them Blenders unwrapper 
Yah, some kind of milestone. Nice. I remember when. . . 
Using blender in Maya should be no different than say using blender in Windows. Windows is certainly not open source but you can use open source apps without a problem.
Selling Maya plug with Maya is a problem, for Autodesk at any rate.
This is pretty awesome news. Blenders unwrapping tools have continued to leap ahead at an astounding pace so it’s nice to see them begin to spread to other apps.
As it told, this an implementation, there’s no problem.
Was LSCM Unwrapping for Maya™ written from scratch? If yes, the authors can take the license which he want.
Liquid, a birdge between Maya™ and renderman™ compliant is under GPL and it doesn’t seem making problem.
Don’t be jalous, however i’m a GPL fan, it doesn’t disturb me, if they have time and capabilities to code something for others, let them doing that.
even well, it’s better implemented in Blender and Blender is free! eheh
cheers
No, one of the main differences in limited-GPL and GPL is the support of linking. OGRE for example uses this. Thier whole design is built upon modularity and the possibility to attach it to other (GPL as well as commercial) projects.
Many “GPL-pureists” dislikes LGPL because of it’s limited imposed freedom and openness on the endproduct, but it instead serves another good cause. It for example helps stuff like free decoders to reach a big market. If ogg was a GPL lib it wouldn’t be possible to add support to commercial established software like winamp (making it a de-facto standard, as it has become in some parts of the industry). Now afaik, ogg is BSD licensed, but could have been LGPL also, but to spread as it has today it could not have been GPL to reach the same audience.
Linking GPL with non-compatible license is not allowed, but there are some exceptions for the opposite: This is what FSF says about the issue.
C++ is not just “C with classes”, as I guess some people say. The major difference is that C++ is fully Object Oriented.
3dbuzz has some AWESOME C++ video tutorials.
They have a bundle together with some OpenGL lessons for $150 (+$15 s/h).
Really? So you couldn’t have a closed source texture/sequence plugin?
There has been a bit of debate latley as to the GPL status of python scripts that utilize the BPY API. Apparently this IS linking as far as the FSF is concerned:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
This seems like a legal minefield to me…
Cheers,
Xarf
If that would be true, there would not be GPL software for windows.
GPL software can link what ever you want. But non-GPL software can link GPL software only if it’s license is compatible.
I don’t know…isn’t kind of like…running this little shop that competes against the very big corporate stores and the little shop figures out a great recipe and then just gives it to the corporation for free?
I mean this was one of blenders selling points and now its useable on maya and upandcomming Max…I mean…maybe I’m too much of a businessman but I feel like if they want the feature they should use blender?
I mean anyone with me on this?
I agree with Peregrine. I am NOT happy looking at a commecial, closed-source software like Maya enhancing itself using modules from Blender without giving something in exchange to Blender and their community.
That’s the reason of the GPL’s restrictions: If you want to use a module from Blender, you must use it in an open source software, so anyone else can use your modules to enhance their own software.
I mean anyone with me on this?
I’m not. Blender’s not a shop. What I mean to say is that the basic ethic of free software is not to try to restrict what others can do in order to get them to come to you. Thinking like a “businessman” isn’t really going to help you get a handle on how free software works.
For one thing, Blender doesn’t actually compete with Maya. That’s a kind of fundamental point here. There is no competition. Blender is what it is, and it’s free. There are no “selling points” to something that isn’t sold.
GPL restrictions say essentially that you can’t compile GPL source into a non-open source code proprietary binary. In case people didn’t bother to read the link, the plugin itself is released under the GPL and can be freely modified, so there’s no closed code here. Basically there is in no way shape or form any kind of abuse of Blender or GPL here. There is no problem in using an open source program to do something with a closed source program. The guy wrote an open source plug-in. He’s giving it away to anybody who wants it. The users are Maya users. So whats the beef?
In any case, the research paper that the unwrapper was based on is publicly available, and Maya is certainly capable of writing their own, proprietary implementation of it, which needn’t give any credit to Blender or anybody else, since it would be coded from scratch. So the fact that this open source plugin beat them to it is good PR for Blender.
With regard to Python scripts and the GPL, frankly, it’s awful hard to see how it even matters, since you can’t compile a binary of a Python script for use in Blender. How does somebody even write a “closed source” Python script? Forget to put the GPL disclaimer at the top and then sue people for using it? I think that questions like this just exist to provide verbiage on GPL FAQs.
I can’t help but feeling a bit miffed : we are making Maya better ? Why should we help someone who’s stated intention is to not help us ?
I had the same reaction when I opened IE lately : they’ve made it almost identical to Firefox : it’s pissing.
I don’t think that it is legal either.
Blender in Windows : AFAIK, Blender is not linked to anything non-free and that means anything specifically Windows. Accessing services (like codecs) is another matter completely.
Those are my feelings.
Now to be realist, there is no telling what the consequences of this could be and I am willing to wait.
If for example the coders of the plugin were to enhance it seriously then they’d have to publish their code and we would benefit from it. That would be devilishly cool. 
J.