I don’t disagree. I was more responding to Atom’s misunderstanding as to how the GPL applies to Blender add-ons / plugins. Blender doesn’t owe any third-party developer anything. If a third-party developer says they want Blender to use their software, it’s on them & not Blender developers to make that happen
However, outside this particular instance, there is a reasonable argument that it would benefit Blender to allow an ecosystem where third-party plugins don’t need to GPL licensed. All part of the “Blender needs to join the pipeline because it cannot hope to replace it” argument
Not without also providing the source code. As long as you are using Blender API’s (and I cannot reasonably believe you’re not), your add-on will need to be GPL compliant which (practically) means releasing the source code along with the binaries. I mean, you can always be a tool and make the end-user request the source code (which you’re legally obliged to give them) but that would almost guarantee one of them releases it on github.
Just to clarify, the purpose of my post was not to come across as one immaturely ranting about the Blender Community not being taken seriously. Rather, it was to address the fact that Otoy is selling Octane (and the Blender Plug-In) as a finished product. Based upon my experience (and others if you check Otoy forum), the Blender Plug-In is months behind the others in the development cycle. Questions regarding an ETA for it have largely fallen on deaf ears. The bits that have been delivered are poorly documented and quite buggy.
Regarding your comment on writing my own plug-in, that would be an option. Nonetheless, when it comes to the VFX work I do, I prefer to purchase products rather than writing my own. If you think being a consumer (versus developer) of VFX products makes you less of an artist, then so be it. Likewise, the assertion that Blender can only be taken seriously if we all write our own plug-ins or exporters seems a bit ill-conceived.
However, outside this particular instance, there is a reasonable argument that it would benefit Blender to allow an ecosystem where third-party plugins don’t need to GPL licensed. All part of the “Blender needs to join the pipeline because it cannot hope to replace it” argument
I think the reluctance of third-party developers to license their products under the GPL has more to do with FUD, and less to do with the actual issues with the GPL. Nothing about the GPL precludes selling software for money.
For GPL and Creative Commons licensed items this is correct. The buyer is fully within their legal right to redistribute. In my experience, though, this very seldom plays out this way. It’s the same way in the Wordpress world. Most commercial themes and plugins are licensed as GPL and yet there’s a thriving commercial ecosystem.
Perhaps the Blender Market could reassure developers by stipulating something along the lines of “Without the permission of the original developers, we will not host plugins that are blatantly re-packaged or forked from original code, however legal it may be to do so under the GPL” in its terms-of-service. This way, developers can rest easy knowing that their hard work will not re-appear in the same distribution channel. Just because something is legal under the GPL doesn’t mean the Blender Market has to host it.
Goldorak wrote:The 2.0 Blender plug-in is coming along as fast as possible. As in the past, it takes more time than other plug-ins to develop, as it requires a completely different framework to integrate to link to Blender over a network connection. We also have to post the source of the changes we make to Blender, etc…
Basically, there is a lot more under the hood that needs to happen to integrate and support Blender+Octane than with under plug-ins.
And then when asked how long it would take he responded:
I think we’ll be be better able to answer that in a few weeks. Thanks for your patience.
That was two weeks ago, I’m thinking that we should see the 2.0 version of the plugin soon now. You can always use the python exporter as well, it’s slower especially with animations, but it works with 2.0.
I’d say it’s not worth the grief for a number of other reasons. You have to install three different apps just to use a renderer, they aren’t automatically set up out of the box, and feature support is iffy. I know it’s because of a combination of difficulty getting around the GPL and the beta state of the project, but having to download a custom version of Blender just to use a rendering engine is just nuts. It was nuts for V-Ray (thank goodness that’s not necessary anymore) and it’s nuts for Octane. I think that within the near future Blender is going to have to get a separate plugin API that allows c++ integration and has a more permissive license to get any real interest in production add-on development going.
Personally, I think the BF will eventually need to unleash a massive effort to weaken the copyleft surrounding Blender by either finding ways to add exceptions to the existing GPL license (for Python and BGE games ect…), or move away from the GPL altogether in favor of a custom ‘Blender’ license that allow for commercial friendliness while keeping Blender code from being copied into other apps.
If Blender can’t be re-licensed as a whole, then doing it with just the Python API and the Game Engine may suffice. It’s just not sustainable for the user to keep multiple custom Blender versions updated to use commercial render engines. The only other option would be to just have Cycles developed to the point where it becomes the only engine you need, but a lot of people will still probably want to use another engine.
I have a paid licence guys, never heard about addons to be used in vanilla blender with commercial license done by Chaos. Vray needs a custom build. There is also a whole new ui for nodes, cycles is not even shipped with it when you fire it up.
If such big companies can’t do more I think it’s blender “fault” indeed.
But I remember ton saying he’s not happy with this forking for render engines so things might change.
Anyone here should reserve any judgement until we find out why he’s not happy and what his proposed solution is (whether it’s re-licensing parts of Blender, a new Render API under the Apache2, ect…).
I know it might be tempting to jump at this sort of thing but restraint is advised.
It was a quick message in the middle of irc meeting or such, please. :o
Not sure what will change at all (if any) maybe nothing in the near future I don’t know. But I’m sure he said, because I thought about my vray license and the need of a custom build.
Said this I wouldn’t rush into conclusions, blender foundation agenda seems already quite full.
Yeah, I saw the response. Unfortunately it’s a commitment to provide an ETA in a couple of weeks. Not a commitment to provide the plug-in.
Most of the earlier versions of the plug-in beta were released around the same time as updates to the standalone. When the first official release of the standalone occurred is when they really dropped the ball. I suspect that it could be due to having one developer doing Maya and Blender plug-ins. Additionally, the Renderman price changed at roughly the same time. This likely caused them to commit their only resource to Maya and let Blender slip.
I think their response is mostly BS. There have been regular Maya releases since Octane 2.0 release, so their only resource has been busy with the Maya plug-in - not struggling to complete the Blender plug-in.
UM, as a developer who actually contributes code to GPL projects and who makes a living selling proprietary software - that’s complete bollocks. It is not FUD to state, truthfully, that the GPL allows the first person who gets your product to legally share it with everyone for free. It is not FUD that makes this a risk that get’s more & more costly the larger the initial investment in developing software you wish to sell.
The GPL doesn’t need to state “you can’t sell your product” for it’s requirements to make it difficult to impossible to recoup large investment of development effort through the sales of said software. The companies that make money from GPL software don’t do it through sales, not because they’re adverse to making money off GPL code, but because the license makes that particular plan foolhardy in the real world.
In a post Google / Github world - this is as useful at stopping people uploading & downloading the source code to sold plugins as leaving the barn door open but telling the horses sternly they better not leave while you’re gone. Almost anyone who has found the Blender Marketplace knows how to use Google.
I’ve actually been pretty happy with the Octane plugin for Blender. Used it for a few months to get some projects done and never really had huge issues with it. Apart from my lack luster graphics card (which is still faster than rendering with my cpu) I never really had much problems. Other than really wanting hair rendering that’s in 2.0 the plugin that I use now doesn’t bother me so much.
I do agree that installing a separate Blender and a Server is silly, but considering Vray needs a custom Blender than I do suspect that this is apart of the GPL that the Foundation needs to fix. As others have mentioned.
And I do feel left out that the Dev for the Blender Plugin is being used up for Maya users. However, Otoy has about 5 other plugins in development along with a Game Engine, Scanning technology and recently showed some holographic tech :
Which is pretty sick to be honest.
So honestly, although it’s probably their fault, they seem sorta stretched and there isn’t much we can do about it even if we complain out loud (which has been happening over on the Octane forums for sure).
I personally would love to see a plugin developed for Zbrush to Octane just like Keyshot does but I know it’s pretty unlikely…
Quoting for posterity. When a non-moderator says it, we’re trolls
I’ve said it before, but apparently some people just don’t get it. The Blender Foundation cannot do this. You cannot add an exception to the GPL unless you own the copyright on all the code in the GPL licensed software. The Blender Foundation doesn’t. Not only are there contributions that were made under the GPL (rather than explicit assignment of copyright like was required with mySQL and similar projects), but there are multiple GPL libraries being used that would need replaced as well.
At this stage, the codebase has so much code that has not had copyright explicitly assigned to the Blender Foundation that there would need to be an almost complete rewrite required to release it under a non-GPL license. Technically, it can be done. In practice, the effort required would prevent any advancement of the project for several months as the whole mess is sorted out and large parts, patches, and libraries recoded in order to meet the legal requirements (i.e. complete copyright ownership) to add the “Blender exception”.
As above. It’s all or nothing. Blender will need to have ALL GPL code the Blender Foundation does not own removed from it in order to relicense the Python API and Game Engine. You keep repeating that the Blender Foundation needs to relicense them, but ignore the fact you have been repeatedly told that the GPL prevents that so long as there are GPL libraries & code in the project that the Blender Foundation does not own the copyright to.
