is Jahshaka no longer open source

my understanding its open source like blender. but this is what i am geting from there web sites --> PRESS jahguide button on the right hand corner of page
you endup at this link
click the link you get,com_forum/Itemid,45/page,viewtopic/t,652/
Jahshaka’s appology of why its not open source

I’ve been reading some threads in the forum. Very weird!

Even Jahshaka himself has not acces to the code! :o

I have a question?
how is supposed to be used a GNU/GPL code in a new closed source release?
is it possible? lower part of the page about responsibilities:

* You must provide a copy of the GPL with the program, so that the recipient is aware of his rights under the license.
* You must include the source code or make the source code freely available.
* If you modify the code and distribute the modified version, you must license your modifications under the GPL and make the source code of your changes available. (You may not use GPL’d code as part of a proprietary program.)
* You may not restrict the licensing of the program beyond the terms of the GPL. (You may not turn a GPL’d program into a proprietary product.)

I understand it so that if they use any GPL’d part, they need to use GPL as the license for the program. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks BeBraw for the info. Lets see what happens.

However, reading the forum seems that the code is no longer publicly available, even if it is GNU/GPL licensed/developed.

GPL doesn’t mean that you can’t develop it behind closed doors. You only have to provide the source code for published products. Otherwise we could, for example, force Ton to provide us the unfinished render recode source. We’re not blaming him for doing it by himself, are we?

You can still download 2.0 RC2 sources and do whatever you want with them, as long as you obey the GPL. This means also that if there’s a 3.0 based on GPL:d sources, it will be GPL.

I’ve got to admit that cutting jahshaka off the development of his own program is rather stupid.

GPL doesn’t mean that you can’t develop it behind closed doors

Come on. We know the difference.

You only have to provide the source code for published products

Thats not how oPen source works imo

It’s just another way of developing open source projects. Apparently GCC is developed in the same way:

I agree, letting out unfinished, buggy source code to the masses is a very good idea, especially for PR. %|

Perhaps not, but at least it’s the way GPL works and the end product will still be open. It’s not how we (yep, me neither) would want it, but it’s what the developers have decided for now. If I decided to do a fork based on Jahshaka 2.0 RC2 code and said I wouldn’t release it until I had made actual progress, would you flame me for not being open? If major changes need to be done quickly, it can often be done easier in a closed development environment.

If you downloaded the Blender source and changed it so that every material rendered red, you wouldn’t have to give me the source even if I asked for it. Neither would you be forced to take Ton in your development team even if he wanted.

I think this is quite similar to what happened with XGL. XGL development had been real slow (1 active developer at that moment, iirc) so Novell took it behind closed doors and after some time (and major changes), they opened it up a bit again. I don’t know if they have the most recent code available anywhere but it will surely be open in the future.


I agree, letting out unfinished, buggy source code to the masses is a very good idea, especially for PR. %|[/quote]

I didn’t know about open software developed in this way. Anyway my opinion has nothing to do with bugs
but with transparency. :expressionless:

so the founder has no access? how did he lose control of his project?

Yes it is possible sometimes, but it dosnt seem to be under these circumstances.

The GPL does not take rights away from the original copyright holder. It is perfectly legal for them to close their sources and then make new releases of the program under a closed source license. This dosn’t happen much, but it is possible (see moonlight3d). One of the reasons it couldn’t happen for a large project with blender is that you would have to get everyone who had contributed code to blender to agree to it.

Anyway this is irrelevant since it seems clear from Jahshaka’s forum post that 3.0 will not be a closed source release, only that its being developed by a team behind closed doors. Theres nothing in the GPL that disallows this… it only states that if you distribute a new binary you must provide the modified source in a ‘reasonable amount of time’.

To be quite honest with you I dont see anything wrong with what is going on here. It’s not like Jah has any ethical or moral right to demand access to derivative works stored on someone elses hard drive. He was the one who originally released the code under the GPL and in doing so assigned them the right to do whatever they damn well pleased with the code. The only way he would have any cause for complaint is if they distributed a modified binary without providing source, and its pretty clear from his forum post that he understands this.


Blender is developed in a similar way, but with more updates. Nobody knows what Ton is doing exactly. There’s lots of speculation, though.

You’re right, what they’re doing isn’t transparent at all. From your previous post it seemed like you were saying that every step of development should be published, which is a ridiculous concept.

But I wonder if projects like Jahshaka could benefit more from a transparent development model like Blender. At least it seems transparent to me.:smiley:

Besides, at first glance, “closed doors” seems a bit contraditory with Open/Free Software general purposes.

On the other side, I don’t suppose “open doors” model higger eficiency or moral standars, maybe “closed doors” is more suited for projects with a reduced number of developers or projects with issues.

Anyway I wish them good luck.

I think Positron will be hitting the scene soon

What it sounds like to me is that the sponsers stole it.

yah but negatron is all we need.

it is difficult ot understand this situation i think.

somebody has to be able to guide the dev of a project. even when it is open source. imagine it is free for everybody to play with it in a way they want to.
i guess that this would only result in crap.

while the blender dev team has a strutuce ro decide what goes into a release and what not still everything is accessible for everybody, final releases and patches.

and for me the point here is that vmfx does not allow this access to the Jahshaka himself.

i do not know if the conflict between vmfx and Jahshaka are of personal nature or business nature.

this dispute just puts bad light on the hole project.

the orange project in my opinion was a good idea to stream line dev and decission of what needs to get into blender and what not and that step by step.

somehow vmfx behavior reminds me about openOSX

well lets see what positron will do, i agree here. i think for blender users this solution might also make more sense …

well lets see how the compositor will turn out in orange

simple minds can still use cinelerra for mundane or less mundane tasks. not exactly a compositor, but gets the job done asap.