So if they release base module w/out library would they have to allow building user library objects-as per Blender tools OR
could they restrict TheirModule <—> Blender interoperability ?
I have to say I’m quite disappointed about Ton’s reaction to this:
He’s directing a lot of negativity from his uninformed followers at the product. Is that what you need to deal with, if you actually use the rights the GPL grants you, for once?
They don’t have to mention the GPL or Blender anywhere in this video, that is completely irrelevant to their target audience. Blender is a trademark, if anything they’d have to make clear that this program is not Blender.
I’ve found it interesting that “open” source is supposed to be so free, but if someone is trying to make a commercial closed source product based on open source then GPL agents get mad. Where was the freedom? What is the actual problem in that? Why can’t someone make money?
@bluecd they could make building a library difficult (obfuscated), though being GPL you could always go in and figure out whats going on and UN-opfusticate it.
At this level you can get into grey areas for GPL. like if they do tricks so regular blend files wont load, and you need their builds, which have source available, but at that point most users wouldnt bother to make a special, incompatible blender version just for this extension…
Basically if you really want to you can do things which are not in the spirit of the GPL but dont exactly go against it…
You wont find a whole lot about Linux on http://www.ubuntu.com or http://www.android.com … its a good thing to have derivatives. but a little odd they go to such length to hide its blender (changing name in titlebar for example).
@Krice - Blender is open but its also GPL (Copyleft if you like) if their product is closed source, then they are not allowed to do so (assuming they distribute it OR found some way to communicate with an external process), since they didnt release… theres no problem to make some software and release videos of it for now.
Basically anyone who has a copy of their software would have the right to get the source-code, if they have a very limited customer base who doesnt mind closed software, it may be possible to get away with this (its been done before), but not really a great business plan.
Yes, a bit knee-jerk from Ton? I mean if you look a the video from this thread “Blender” is plastered all over it and who says you cannot rebrand a GPL software (whilst being fair with credits). Perhaps bad taste in mouth after 3DMagix.
Anyhow interesting looking tools here, good work. Hope you can get past licensing stuff.
I suggest we show some love as it is posted here in the blender community? Andrew can answer all the assumptions and speculation I am sure.
Indeed, anyone who doesn’t think these are brilliant is in need of professional help. :yes: 
It’s not odd, at all, it’s what they are legally required to do. They cannot use the Blender brand for their own product. From reading this thread, I’m confident they are going to be compliant with the GPL terms.
What alternatives are there? Creating a patched version of the original Blender, distribute it as Blender from your company website, making sure to explain to your customers what the difference is, between your Blender and the official Blender? That would be completely confusing and it would be irrelevant for the target audience.
I guess the takeaway from this is: If you want to make anything out of Blender that isn’t Blender, you will get a lot of negative feedback from self-important (and uninformed) Blender users.
Why did I think of The Sims during the video? 
Anyway, awesome feature that you made, it makes modular modelling a whole lot more “custom” and handy, and modular modelling is my “ideal workflow” for 3D. You make the model, some parameters on what can be changed, and put iot on a library for yourself or the “scene composition guy” which will quickly get the elements around as wanted.
Looking forward to see this being implemented!
I’m confused now if this tool is going to be a rebranded and different software such Ton’s tweet video (which i can’t grasp why being negative atm, if it does not violate license), or an addition to existing B3D, much more welcome and interesting, whether it’s commercial or not.
Youtube channels are different, the OP video seems “connected” but independent from the company. Quite curious now.
Lot of interesting hacking to Blender workflow by the way, right click context menus is so convenient imho, the damn 3d cursor taking a full mouse click (and not being snap-able to anything) is quite exhausting and outdated design, much higher priority than other topics along with assets manager (imho!).
It’s going to be a standalone product, that seems quite clear. However, it is also going to (have to) be free software, as far as the code is concerned. It can’t be an addon as long as the required C changes aren’t in the Blender trunk (or a suitable interface exists).
My guess is that the program will be sold with non-free assets (textures etc). If that is the case, it is the right of the community to create a completely free version by replacing those assets.
This can all be inferred from the licensing terms of the GPL, yet some clown is already threatening legal action in the youtube comments…
What they are doing (so far) is not only perfectly legal and GPL-compliant, it should actually be encouraged, because it’s one of those rare opportunities for commercial development of Blender.
I think Ton is just being skeptical as there has been plenty of rebranding of Blender without GPL being respected.
Once it’s clarified that GPL will be respected it’ll be water under the bridge. 
That said, regardless of any probable drama, I have a lot of respect for exposing all the fiddly configuration stuff in the UI in a coherent manner.
EDIT: And we’ll probably need someone with a website likely to be visited by many Blender users to write up why it’s not violating the GPL.
Because for some reason GPL is kinda hard to grasp for a lot of people.
I just observe it as a fact. And that observation is not only for the video, but for all of their publicity.
On their website they brag about their new revolutionary fluid software, with a long FAQ on it, and without references that it’s actually an open source project or Blender. If they aim to get clients by selling Blender in disguise, then I reserve the right to inform everyone about that little missing detail.
My sincere hope is that they just overlooked it, and that Microvellum is a serious company who’s interested in friendly cooperation with open source projects. There’s much more for them and for us to win by working together.
Don’t mix up two different videos. The topic of this thread is not about the video I tweeted about: the “Microvellum Fluid Designer”.
Don’t think this is right,
someone can sell an addon, bundle it with Blender. Linux distros provide modified Blender packages and don’t rebrand, however if Blender foundation finds the changes are enough to make this a different product then they could ask the name be changed (See firefox & iceweasel)
Disagree, I’ve even done this before for a company and their customers, customers understood that they were getting a customized version of Blender. - its no big deal, Microvellum already sell some extension to autocad so this isn’t so unusual.
You’re being a bit hasty jumping to conclusions, we had people re-branding and selling Blender more then once before (3dmagix, cant recall others)… so the blender community is sensitive to this, but lets see how this plays out.
Yeah, the 3d cursor, still there
To have this icon and not mention blender, is like not mentioning Ton.
:evilgrin:
OK kidding but I could not resist.
Now, what’s next?
Maybe a sculpting painting application, without the odds happening under multires?
An application, really competitive to zbrush?
:evilgrin:
Next what? Some animation application maybe?
BTW, they do use cycles without mentioning blender foundation.
Too kind of them.
Please, this is not just about rights, GPL etc etc.
"
Against this fear is our chief safeguard,
teaching us to obey the magistrates and the laws, particularly such as
regard the protection of the injured, whether they are actually on the
statute book, or belong to that code which, although unwritten, yet
cannot be broken without acknowledged disgrace.
"
Thucydides
The History of the Peloponnesian War
Pericles, About democracy.
“acknowledged disgrace”
I think the translation from the ancient greek text is simply amazing.
The video in this thread is totally different than the one Ton posted.
It’s true that they don’t mention Blender or the GPL. From just reading your tweet, it seems as if there was something wrong with that, but at least as far as the GPL is concerned, there isn’t. They haven’t done anything wrong.
The reception is clearly negative, if that wasn’t your intention, you could mention that - but you didn’t. You are, in effect, directing your uninformed followers to give negative feedback.
If they aim to get clients by selling Blender in disguise, then I reserve the right to inform everyone about that little missing detail.
They aren’t doing that. They added a lot of features relevant to their clients that are not found in Blender and that they developed themselves. This program is not Blender in disguise and it is not Blender, even if 99.9% of it is the Blender codebase.
I can’t access their website right now. While I do believe a mention of Blender is in order, confusing your clients with what is and what isn’t their product isn’t necessarily in their best interest.
Yes, they could do that. They don’t want to do that, they want to have a dedicated product (and they certainly changed enough to warrant that). The point is, if they want to have their own product, they need to rebrand blender. From blender.org:
Just picture as two separate domains, with a clear dividing line:
GNU GPL: “I share this with everyone, and I want it to stay free to share”.
Autodesk: “I share this only with you, and you can not share or sell it”.
Once software is in the GNU GPL domain, it has an additional protection (or limitation) that it cannot become locked up.
And just like Free Software doesn’t like to become locked, Autodesk doesn’t like you to unlock and share.
If you respect the stance of commercial software vendors to stay closed, then the GNU GPL deserves the same respect to stay open.
Fair deal!
what people usually miss is that besides GPL it the small matter of intelectual property , its not legal to claim somet
hing you have not created yourself as yours. Crediting Blender is the legal, professional and fair thing to do. When I first saw this thread I though this was in development python script or blender branch. I had no clue this is an actual commercial product not crediting Blender.