Continuing Blender Development...


(pato) #1

Ton has mentioned a couple of possible methods of continuing Blender development and I thought I might propose a third method. The first (and preferable to me) method for continuing Blender is essentially Open Sourcing it. The second method would be to allow another company in the industry to carry on the development of Blender. While I would very much like to see Ton take the Open Source route I’m all too aware that there are irritating real life concerns that we all need to take care of like making sure you get a paycheck every now and again. :wink: Plainly, sometimes life gets in the way of things we’d like to do. :slight_smile: This is why if Blender continues development with another company I’d like to see Ton Open Source an older version of Blender. v1.8 or v1.5 should be new enough to make it useful to the community yet old enough that a company who might carry on development wouldn’t consider the Open Source version a threat. This would ensure that there will always be a free, high quality 3D app for people to learn and discover with. Open Sourcing a version of Blender would give Blenderheads a fall back position so that if the company behind Blender fell off the face of the Earth development could always resume.

Some might say that even if Blender development forever halted you could just download old versions and learn from that. While this is of course possible very few people (esp a 3d newbie) are going to start learning a dead program with no future and probably a small or (by then) nonexistent community to help them along.

It certainly has been a bumpy and uncertain ride for Blender users and employees. I like many have spent a good deal of time with Blender and have more than once thought that everyone’s efforts (developer and community alike) in Blender would lead to a dead end. Now let me say that I don’t feel Ton owes this to anyone but I do know that Blender is his baby and he doesn’t want to see anything happen to bring Blender to a halt if he can help it. Obviously Open Sourcing Blender helps the users and also secures Blender’s freeness and development possibilities. Hopefully make everyone (Ton, the community and any potential buyers) feel happy and secure about the future of Blender as long as the company acquiring Blender understands Blenders roots and heritage.

Comments?

-Pato


(jbelanche) #2

I’m agree with your post.

Javier


(acasto) #3

I agree also, the community here is like the Jedi. A small yet highly capable group of the (hopefully not lost) art of blendering.


(blengine) #4

im yoda!!! hes so small, but is so damn fast! (episode 2, go see it!)
i totally agree too, u have good ideas… ton rocks, blender rocks…and hopefully theyll have a rockin (progressive) future


(Schlops) #5

imgranpaboy you can’t be yoda! You don’t use the yoda-grammar 8)
You should say something like: “totally i agree too, good ideas you have, young blenderhead” :wink:


(macke) #6

I bet ya Ton looking at these few posts would make him agree. The grass is always greener on the other side I suppose. Sheesh…


(acasto) #7

How does any of that even apply to anything stated here? What side do you propose the grass is greener?

If Blender is exsistent, there is two possible forms:

  1. owned and distributed by a company such as NaN
  2. open source

I don’t think anyone is implying a bias towards either, only conveying wishes of Blender’s survival.


(Green) #8

How does any of that even apply to anything stated here? What side do you propose the grass is greener?

If Blender is exsistent, there is two possible forms:

  1. owned and distributed by a company such as NaN
  2. open source

I don’t think anyone is implying a bias towards either, only conveying wishes of Blender’s survival.[/quote]

From what i understod from earlier posts by ton. it would not be opensource compliant. you would havto pay to get the source.


(pato) #9

Remember that even the GPL (a Free Software [Open Source] License) allows a company to charge a fee for access to source code. It certainly doesn’t sound like Ton wants to GPL Blender tho… Just wanted to remind everyone that a project can charge for source code and still be Open Source. :slight_smile:


(Green) #10

Remember that even the GPL (a Free Software [Open Source] License) allows a company to charge a fee for access to source code. It certainly doesn’t sound like Ton wants to GPL Blender tho… Just wanted to remind everyone that a project can charge for source code and still be Open Source. :-)[/quote]

Interesting.
I didnt know that.
I take it that it would allso be possible to fork the code to get around it?


(Briggs) #11

Last time I checked, ‘Open Source’ is a trademarked term (I believe it was Bruce Perens who is responsible for this bit of idiocy). You can’t legally attatch the term to just any project without it meeting certain requirments (at least in the US).


(Briggs) #12

Remember that even the GPL (a Free Software [Open Source] License) allows a company to charge a fee for access to source code. It certainly doesn’t sound like Ton wants to GPL Blender tho… Just wanted to remind everyone that a project can charge for source code and still be Open Source. :slight_smile:

That wasn’t really the point. Although under the GPL a company can charge for source, once they sell it they have no control over it. It will inevetibly end up on ftp sites around the net and anyone with an industrial strength CD duplicator can press copies to sell through the mail for less than the original authors are charging. The plan that Ton seems to be proposing is a different beast alltogather.


(Cessen) #13

OpenSourcing an older version of Blender would still be plenty of a threat to a company maintaining the newer version of blender. Thus, I don’t think that Pato’s reasoning is sound.

However, business and OpenSource can be successfully paired together. Linux is a good example of that: companies such as Redhat thrive despite Linux being OpenSource (or, perhaps, even because of it). Of course, a business model built around an OpenSource operating system would not transfer directly to an OpenSource 3d animation program, but it does show that businesses based upon OpenSource can be successful.

In my case, I trust Ton to make the best decision. Of course, it doesn’t hurt to give him more ideas… just make sure not to pester him about it, because he cares about Blender just as much as–if not more than–any of you.


(Cessen) #14

In that last sentence, I should have said “any of us”, not “any of you”. It sounded like I was excluding myself, which I wasn’t.