[POLL] Armory3D 🆚 UPBGE

[blenderaptor]

@BluePrintRandom

we are getting per vertex displace in eevee next - this should allow to bake animations for mobs and get really high framerates - ik GPU skinning would be nice some day too.

yes, but this illustrates the mental process : a never ending wait for the next tech. Game engine choice is over-rated. Making a game will always be a matter of work anyway.

[BluePrintRandom]

-people ask when we are getting better mesh skinning-

“Vertex Displacement is also enabled by default and will become an option down the line.”
https://devtalk.blender.org/t/eevee-next/23570/83

we are in milestone 3/4 and vertex displace is already in eevee next*

we have 3 months until then,

if one wanted to create these animations now - they can in cycles and save them up for 3.3x

(you can block out a game also until then and swap the ‘place holders’ (bone pareent meshes?) with finals)

this is the best way to do vegetation / wind shaders too*

I don’t care about releasing games, I have plenty of money.

I care about making more possible for others…

[LoboTommy]

If you’re only releasing to x86 PC then UPBGE is an option. Want to release to consoles? iOS / Android / Web? Then use Armory 3D, or Godot, etc.

Unrelated: Online @moderators can I get feedback about my pending thread please? Thank you.

[RPaladin]

@mysticfall

while you falsely claimed that it does not use “Blender source” and backpedalled from it only after I pointed out the fact.

Hi! I’d like to clear up some more miscommunications and clarify important facts. As you mentioned and linked, already, the Armory3D add-on repository on Github states the Blender license. However, notice that the license was made in 2018.This is the year the BGE was removed and later on in 2019 Blender 2.8+ was officially launched. Armory3D did use Blender source back than when legacy source was actively developed, as you can see in the video below.

5 Minutes of Armory

@lubos (creator of Armory3D) himself stated the changes in licensing at the Armory3D forum. Post link here. He did this because after the Blender 2.8+ migration he decided to not integrate it into the 3D Viewport like BGE/UPBGE has - probably because of the large amount of new incompatibilities that were introduced.

Creators using Blender are only required to follow Blender’s GPL licenses if their product or work uses actual Blender source (e.g. uncompiled C++ source). Blender add-ons on the other hand do not fall under those GPL laws because they only use the Blender API and not its source - as I mentioned already in this thread. Add-ons fall under their own respective licenses - in Armory3D’s case, it falls under its zlib/libpng license.

In conclusion, the license at the Github repository needs to be removed, as it’s no longer valid and vastly outdated. Official Blender license statements surrounding add-ons can be found at the Blender website here and here.

[mysticfall]

@RPaladin

Ceators using Blender are only required to follow Blender’s GPL licenses if their product or work uses actual Blender source (e.g. uncompiled C++ source). Blender add-ons on the other hand do not fall under those GPL laws because they use the Blender API and not its source - as I mentioned already in this thead. Add-ons fall under their own respective licenses - in Armory3D’s case, it falls under its zlib/libpng license.

This is incorrect. The quoted license statement from the Blender website is true, but it looks like you misinterpreted it.

It does not matter whether the source code involved is compiled or not, or whether it’s written in C++ or Python.

The important part is that any piece of software that relies on GPLed source code or library must be covered under the same license if it’s to be published.

You can sell, or use such a piece of software for a commercial project as long as you publish the whole part under GPL.

In short, as long as Armory3D still relies on such modules as bpy the relevant part (at the very least) must be published under GPL3.

[RPaladin]

If that is true, how is it the Cycles Engine license switched from GPL to Apache 2.0 back in 2013. Are you sure the GPL licenses’ are not just there for if no other licenses are stated?

[mysticfall]

I don’t know the history of Cycles rendering engine, but I doubt if they switched its license in the middle of the development. It’s not easy to do that for an open source project since it’d require explicit agreement from all of the contributors.

But the LICENSE file I can find in the Cycles repository says it hasn’t changed since the initial commit which indicates that the project has switched to the GPL in a very early state when there are only a couple of people involved.

Note that the only person who can change the license of a software project is one who owns the code. And those who develop Armory3D clearly does not own Blender so there’s no possible way they can circumvent the license.

I can understand that not everyone is familiar with how GPL works. But if you aren’t sure, please refrain from arguing about it based on false information.

Technically speaking, I believe the use case of Blender code in Armory3D is an infringement of GPL, although I doubt if Blender’s people would consider it to be so or take an action against it.

It’s in the grey area of the license so it’d depend on how the authors of the code would interpret it.

However, relicensing of a Blender addon is a whole different matter. It’s a clear case of GPL violation and even the Blender people can’t argue that it isn’t.

In other words, even the existing status of the licensing matter of Armory3D is in a rather precarious position and can only be sustained by a very lenient interpretation of GPL which possibly has originated from a goodwill of the Blender developers.

I don’t know if you are a member of the Armory3D project or not. But if you keep trying to spread false information of GPL or showing an intention to circumvent it, I doubt the “goodwill” would last indefinitely.

So, if I were you I wouldn’t play with fire.

[joseph (J)]

You can pretty easily resolve this argument, technically you’re both wrong and both right.

Armory, however, does use a GPL-compatible license:

[mysticfall]

A “GPL-compatible” license means that you can take a piece of software released under it and incorporate into your GPL project.

It does not mean, however, that you can take a piece of GPL software and incorporate into a project covered by a “weaker” GPL-compatible license:

(The image is from this article. And please note the direction of arrows which is significant.)

[Ace_Dragon]

@mysticfall

I don’t know the history of Cycles rendering engine, but I doubt if they switched its license in the middle of the development. It’s not easy to do that for an open source project since it’d require explicit agreement from all of the contributors.

Cycles was GPL for the first six months or so, but it was communicated that it was mainly to protect the code. As a result, they actually did manage to get approval from all of the contributors to make the switch to Apache 2.

The catch, Cycles was still young enough for it to be possible without changes. There is no way Blender can switch now since the license does not care if some developers cannot be contacted or are even still alive. Now Brecht did not actually intend to make a GPL render engine so that was also a factor.

[Ghoose_Official]

any tutorial?