Sure they have! That’s the very basis for certain variations of communism. It’s an extremely successful form of government that has not failed once, ever! North Korea is a model example of it’s effectiveness. 
That’s sarcasm for those that need it pointed out.
haaaa, c’mon guys, with these usual stereotypes.
I’m just a pragmatic realist.
work at the “Ford farms 60s-70s” way, no longer exists.
and without collectively stable jobs, it’s just a war between the poor.
I would much rather see slow, organic growth, even if it means we don’t catch up with other software. In my opinion any strictly code based add on is implicitly required to carry the GPL. Any market that wishes may sell it at any price. Including redistributing it at a price of zero. I have no problem with people posting copies of these add on code elsewhere for free, or cheaper. If this slows down the development of Blender, so be it.
You usually have to bend over backwards to get around the gpl affecting your code, but there are ways to go about it like communications over tcp ip and other s
Sure, all of the professionals would leave and most of the users would some years later (as that would allow the revival of the midrange market).
For those left behind, they won’t care about the BF going back to being a tiny organization where Ton has to code again, because they will feel good about the spirit of FOSS being back.
Last I checked, few good things tend to come out of companies and organizations focused on people’s feelings instead of the quality of the product. The spirit of FOSS does not need to be incompatible with producing professional-grade software for the masses. If you want a slow-growth app. with a shoestring budget and good vibes, then perhaps look at reviving K3D or Art of Illusion.
Also, I notice you use Cycles as your main workhorse for rendering. If Blender stuck with the “spirit of FOSS” as defined by these threads, you would still be using BI and spending a lot of time trying to fake everything from PBR to GI.
Licenses like GPL are what they are, they are not what you want/wish them to be.
So to me feelings, utopias about freedom and gratuity, addons developers living in a real world where they need to make money, morals, ethics, etc. are understandable considerations depending on the way you see it, but it does not make much sense to discuss about it, because as I said, GPL is what it is, and what it allows or limits does not depend on feelings, utopias, or morality, or ethics.
It’s that simple, with GPL in Blender you do what it allows and limit yourself to not doing what it does not allow. And if you do not like it then you choose something else with a license that meets your needs.
The issue is that they are not in the same game to begin with:
BF devs are paid to produce the software, addons devs are not. If you want the same rules for everyone, either everyone must have the same starting point, either it’s unfair and it won’t work.
You are quoting a Blender/Cycles developer (Stefan Werner) who collaborates with many really great features, such as Cryptomate, Embree, Adaptive Sampling. I understand that Stefan is not a core developer paid for by BF. Anyway, paid or not is irrelevant to the subject and I’m pretty sure that “Playing the same rules” just means that the Blender licenses are respected by everyone in the same way, and has nothing to do with which developers can sell their addons .
While BF developers are paid to write software, software isn’t what the BF is being paid for. They’re making money with something else.
Look, the truth is quite simple: It’s hard to make money from providing GPL software and nothing else. Any major company invested in GPL software is making their money from something else - support, consulting, training, etc. If you’re looking for place to write and sell plug-ins and nothing else, the GPL is not your friend.
And this where we are with Blender. You can call it a fair game or an unfair system, it is what it is.
You’re not asking that the BF pays everyone who writes add-ons, are you?
That’s the point.
Bf can’t ask individuals selling niche addons in a niche software to also promote and only sell support and assets to generate incomes.
It has proven to not work in this context.
See as reference the $200 / month Jackes Luke is earning for AN.
So Pablo and Ton publicly asking to share our code for free for everyone hurts a bit.
No, I’d be using proprietary software, where I came from before switching to Blender/Cycles. BI triggered no interest from me (also Eevee, although down the line when it matures it might be good enough for what I work with). That said, even dealing with closures is not optimal for me. Although, yes, I’m definitely not complaining about the speed gained from that.
You have better specified what I have tried to say in a more generic way: considering value not only the money, but also many other things that are not so simple to notice with a superficial approach.
The only thing they’r asking is for GPL compliance, nothing more. What you make from that, is your business decision.
Are you OK with distributing your add-on under the terms of the GPL? Then join the Blender ecosystem.
Do you not want to give away your source code to customers and/or do you not want to allow your customers to redistribute your add-on? Then do the smart thing and develop for C4D, Maya or any other software with an EULA that fits your need. That is your safer bet.
I’m not judging. I’ve spent the majority of my career developing proprietary software, and while many customers asked us for a Blender plug-in, we decided not to write one for exactly those reasons.
The thing is all the addons are GPL, so why Ton, Pablo and other are assuming they are not?
Some people don’t want to share the sources?
You have the source, the addon is the sources?
Some people want the source without paying the addon ? It’s again GPL.
It’s like arguing on something that is false to talk about something they dislike (paid addons).
Just read Uriel posts, everything must be free, EVERYTHING!!!
I think we have a language problem. Many other languages distinguish between free as in “costs nothing” and free as in “freedom”. In French, you have “gratuit” and “libre”, in German you have “gratis” and “frei”. Not so in English - both are called “free”.
And that’s where things can get confusing - a paid add-on can be free according to the GPL. I can’t read Ton’s mind, but my interpretation is that he’s (legitimately) requesting all add-ons to follow the GPL license. He does not ask for them to be distributed at no cost.
They’re not.
If the dev use blender API, they are.
Which ones are not?
I know some like Octane, vray have a part in python that is GPL.
I hope you don’t dislike those ones, I want Redshift on Blender!
They are legally required to be distributed under the terms of the GPL. But not everyone is honoring them completely.
I’m not going to name them. If I had a problem with them, I would tell them directly and not shame them in public. Also, accusing others of license violations in public is what could get me into legal trouble, and that’s just not worth it.
But suit yourself - go through your add-on folder and search for this text:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation
Are there any add-ons without this notice?
My addons and all the Addons I know have that.
and yes, it’s normal to not give the name, sorry for asking.
I want to make an argument that I believe puts the developers of blender and the developer of addons in equal justice.
The blender devs are paid for the work done by the community only once for their functionality additions, and to make it keep the attraction to blender exciting and therefore the donations to the foundation with new funding, they must create new expansion proposals and software improvement.
The addons developers, potentially once their code is well written, can theoretically sell their addon again and again, because this can be multiplied infinitely.
The rip-off of which the addons developers complain is the fact that the software they release, to be compatible with the blender rules, must be released under the GPL license, and this cripples their business which could be a source of income that will multiplies because done the job only once, to clone that job done it takes a moment …
Well, blender ecosystem is not the best for this kind of business …
Bakers do the same thing, “clone the bread” and sell it every morning, but they spend a minimum of work every day.
Sorry but you are wrong, no dev can make one code and sell it infinitely!
You have to update your code all the time, if you want to make sales, you need to improve it, you need to fix the bugs, to make support (that is not free), etc.
And Addon’s devs are not complaining about the GPL, it’s blender’s devs who are complaining about some mysterious add-ons that don’t add the GPL text.
