Cool, let’s hope this move will bring more contributions 
Imagine what could happen if Cycles established a new, open standard in pathtracing engines, you would essentially have powerful, state-of-the-art raytracing capabilities available to everyone (even to those who use commercial software).
I’m not saying it will happen (so many other engines out there), but it’s a nice thought.
Between this and what may come from the Steam end of things, it will definitely be interesting to see what the future holds.
Awesome news. I’m looking forward to using cycles with other software, I want to use it with Max, controversial as it may be.
Of course I want more contributions to cycles but I’m not entirely convinced that this will do it.
We welcome other developers to integrate it in other applications, and especially to get involved with the Cycles development team at blender.org.
wow 0_o
dream scenario, next siggraph, when they render previews for papers. it´s rendered with cycles
…in real time!
(you said dream scenario :P)
wow, now we can leave blender and finally can make good things with cycles!
Using 3DS Max GUI (now with Microsoft Ribbon) 
Remember when that was your main running joke (though it would be nice if you started to make longer, constructive comments).
Back to the topic then…
I remember some post of Max VFX guys talking to use Cycles in Max (they don’t have Arnold!) and about blender -------------- In Max undergournd: ------------- by conrad.dueck - July 29, 2013 7:11 pm just to clarify from my earlier post, we still use 3dsmax for all our VFX work. you can see some good stuff in ‘the last stand’ (just remember, all you need to think about is the govern-ator shooting bad guys with a big gun) anyway, very proud to say we did all our fx with 3dsmax2011, rendered in scanline, with fumefx and frost as the only commercial add ons. I used it for 12 years at frantic/pfw and now for 3 years with our current company. it’s our go to software for vfx About that, just remember some post in Max Underground: @Paul, I hear you. my last post was spewing old AD pr. 
-----------------------------------------------------------@Chad, so if blender is free, and open source, is there anything in the GPL preventing a non-commercial plugin for max? I haven’t tried it yet, but apparently blender imports alembic, and an alembic exporter for max was recently released, so that plugin may not ever be needed anyway…just alembic support right in the bas max package(oh how I dream 
) ------------------------------------------------------------------ by chris bond (http://www.thinkboxsoftware.com/) - July 26, 2013 12:03 pm re: blender – unfortunately the specific license for blender means that any code we connect to it [plugins etc] become attached to the GPL meaning that we have to provide source code which also becomes GPL. I dont want to get into a debate about the details/benefits of this, but right now we own everything we write and license appropriate things [h264, QT etc]. i dont think i’m prepared to jump on a support only model at this point! cheers cb - See more at: http://www.maxunderground.com/archives19385_autodesk_siggraph_event_news___including_future_of_naiad.html#respond ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- I hope this push cycles to be a standard. Max,Cinema 4d and Houdini don’t have a similar render solution (like Arnold)…and Blender Foundation can attract more profesional users and Max Plugin developpers!
You first.
I agree completely, even in principal. If we are using other project with such license, we should contribute back a little with such license too.
More people to contribute to Cycles is always a good thing.
Weird, weren’t we just talking about this possibility just the other day? That’s pretty awesome!
It would really make me very happy if Cycles became as popular as V-Ray…
if Max and Maya users and big fx studios start using cycles they will add tons of production functions for fast rendering. and that technology will then be in cycles for blender users to use. since updating will be piece of cake.
so i hope noone will ask how is this good for blender users.
Reading the code.blender.org discussion, it seems like most of the users are supporting it with only a few vocal ones wishing the code was kept as GPL.
I think Ton’s reply says it best when he talks about where he thinks GPL is better for free software and where it isn’t.
GPL protection for Blender is essential. But we already use plenty of permissive modules in Blender too. Most of these wouldn’t have been so good if released under GPL.
Generalizing – permissive licensing works good for libraries, strict licensing works good for end-user software.
Cycles as of now is largely in its own section in terms of the Blender codebase (unlike BI), so it’s already in some ways similar to a library that has deep integration into the host application. This also means that free software advocates who want to see Blender remain under the GPL terms will be happy to know that there are no plans to try to change that.
That is really great news. I hope such good news will be shared by you again and again.
Any plans for releasing a standalone version of Cycles ?
You do realize with permissive license they an are free to “add tons of production functions”, and keep it in-house or sell it as their own product (re-name etc), in practice often they do end up contributing patches back so, lets see how it goes.