Paid add ons and the trunk

General Forums Blender and CG Discussions
1

First off Tyrant Monkey made the comment if you don’t want the controversy simply stay out of this section of Blender Forum. And, how right he was.

However, I have a thought. The Blender Market now has add-ons which many might like to see in trunk. No that isn’t what I wanted to say. Rotopo is in many programs I understand but how will the developers of Blender resolve the Blender Market version with the development to trunk as they move forward.

Or, the other paid for add-ons for that matter. So as they attempt to move Blender forward are they stealing from the Blender Market. Or, will add-ons make Blender much like the other proprietary programs. Where you can go to the poorhouse by loading it up with add-ons.

Just a thought and not something to bring in every dick from around the globe. Because that was Tyrant Monkeys observation. I think he pretty well covered that. If you have a observation fine.

The case has been made you can do anything in Blender without the add-ons. And, that might be true. However, when someone downloads blender with no add-ons and then goes searching for tutorials suddenly they run into something which didn’t exist several years ago.

They have version poor Blender whereas someone else has the gold version. And,

2

Uh, what?

Seriously, what is your contention or point?
Are you against people selling add-ons for Blender?
Are you advocating that the Blender Foundation copy the code of add-ons people want from the Blender Market into trunk?

Your post seems to be a stream of consciousness that doesn’t really get around to the point. Hell the last line looks like you never got around to finishing it!

3

There is currently no evidence that the developers are intentionally holding back feature development to aid commercial addon vendors (and I don’t think Ton is the type of guy that would allow for that to happen).

Campbell has even stated before that the vendors will not have the right to hold a permanent monopoly on certain features (eventually some tools inspired by an addon will get into trunk and they will have to develop their next awesome product).

You can at least realize that the presence of the Blender Market has led to some very powerful addons of the type that simply didn’t exist before that time (because there’s more incentive to develop a lot more when you’re getting paid). Like it or not, it is the spending of large sums of money (due to donations, store purchases, and whatnot) and the BF monetizing what they could that has allowed Blender to be what it is today (because the application can then reap the benefits of paid development).

4

I view the Market as a good way to invest in Blender (I have purchased several plugins). It gives a way to get functionality in Blender that it doesn’t currently have and support the continued development at the same time. If the plugins become obsolete it’s ok in my opinion as I have already gotten my moneys worth.

My only concern is that I can see a slow price creep to more expensive plugins. Many of them have passed the point where I can’t justify purchasing them for just a hobby. :frowning:

5

The Blender Market also allows addon developers to set a commission that will directly fund the development done by the BF (with the majority having done that). That means that people buying addons are helping fund development that benefits everyone.

6

What are you trying to say, so far all I see is a bunch of sentences about how whatever you are saying might spark a flame war.

from what I can gather,you are talking about that the non premium addon blender is better than the free one…

Well obviously
And this is not exclusive to blender

there’s a good reason that 3ds max users always use Vray and not mental ray/ Cinema 4D users use X particles instead of the default system

What’s the problem?

7

I think at some point, Blender will improve on things like BSurf, Relax, Smooth, Shrink Wrap, and Remesh, and plain vertex editing, magnetic snapping etc. As Blender will improve over time, also things like retopo can improve… but at some point yes it might be that retopo wouldn’t add anything more. But i think by the time that happens, the coder of retopo seeing how things went probably had dived into other solutions and have something else on the blender market.
Such patterns you see all the time in software development, newer solutions coders dont stick with the old ones and find new solutions to problems. (think of cycles development).

Only if things realy get outdeveloped like MS office word, then things go different weird UI designs kick in, controversial cloud programming ideas, and eventually a lot bugs… keeping their coders happy for eons, without realy changing the way we type. (and still people subscribe to it) By then other technology can change the way we type… like Androids Swipe or something like Google’s office or openoffice.

Back to retopo unless someone writes improvements in those areas, i think retopo will stay for a while, as such solutions are less of a problem and thus development can happily focus on other things (cycles, physics integration, etc etc).

Maybe though since all those products depend so heavily on the Blender engine, it would be fair after a few years or so to also opensource it, such things happen Rigify is an example of that. However remind while some opensource coders can indeed live from servicing their customers, or just have a gerat hoby as coder, other coders still have to sell something to live; both side are fair.
Note also that there is often a lot of exchange between both sides on coding forums. (as an example disneys opensubdiv).

So if you want retopo you can buy it, to speedup your job.
Its not that things get impossible without it, you can retopo manualy too.
Or maybe if you get skilled you’ll get better in creating meshes and would require it less.
Not saying only unskilled people use it, probably people use it, as for them it means reducing time people who work professional in this area. To me spending time with blender itself is fun, so most of the time I dont worry about time. Oh wel sometimes i need to work fast, too then i just use my experience :wink:

8

Well, as expected here we are. There is no problem except a thought. As Blender moves on the developers have many hurdles to jump. My thought was simply if some paid addons should be in trunk eventually. And, if the developers would be hindered by the paid for add-ons which are obviously already coded.

BTolputt, I hit a key and the post ended. As far as the point I think that was clear. And, I’m not a goddamn nerd by any stretch of the imagination. My point was as our developers move forward do they have to now work around the Blender Market code for things they want in trunk. Since in a way that code is now proprietary. That was my question.

As far as Blender turning into a entrepreneurial venture maybe that was inevitable. My hope is Ton holds the line. And, thanks Ace for posting that. BTolputt this is exactly what I referred to with a comment on this section of the Blender Forum. And, evidently I have no point according to you. Here’s a thought kiss my old American ass.

9

I don’t know if any of them are proprietary (maybe a few), I think that most are GPL?

10

just one note here
add-ons are written in python
Bl is not it uses C and C++

so not same language at all !
and don’t see any problem to re write add-ons in C

happy bl

11

Yes, you posted an ambiguous comment and people replied to it. Somewhat expected.

I’m not the only one that couldn’t understand it. Perhaps it’s clear to you, not to everyone else.

I never said you were… Nor, for that matter, would I consider it an insult. I am a nerd. Kind of proud of it.

Well, that wasn’t as clear as it could be. In answer to that point/question - no, the developers don’t have to work around the Blender Market. Hell, they are even legally allowed to grab that code and use it in whatever trunk plugin they want. The Blender Market add-ons are licensed like every other add-on and the Blender source code itself - under the GPL.

Really hate to burst the bubble on that one, but Blender has always been an entrepreneurial venture. Some of us were around when Ton was selling the application under a proprietary license, others were around for when the community paid €100K to get it released under the GPL, I would say 98% of us have been around long enough to have seen the fact Ton runs crowd-funding campaigns in order to pay his & other developers’ salaries. The Blender Foundation isn’t a charity and Ton isn’t doing what he does for free.

Might want to read what I wrote again and back your “old American ass” up a touch. I never said nor implied you had no point. I said I couldn’t work out what it was.

I wasn’t the only one either. When one person has an issue trying to work out what you mean, that might be on them. When multiple people have the same trouble, it just might have something to do with the lack of clarity in your post. :wink:

Perhaps if you approach this section of the Blender Forum with less of a chip on your shoulder and a little thought to those that will read your posts, it might be a somewhat less prickly experience for you?

12

The answer to your question is PLM (product life cycle management). Blender foundation is the PL manager and also the designer-developer. Blender institute is the marketing and sales (separate institution not part of the foundation). If we look at the Blender Market (which is a third party commercial company) they are a branch which process the raw product and sell it to their costumers.

Now the raw product is controlled by the B-Foundation. The design choices , research & development and release cycle are all decided there. And for simplicity lets call that a finished car. What Blender Market is doing is customizing the product with accessories and improvements like “Pimp my Ride” or “West Coast Customs” (no offense).

Now there may be default specific features which need better design or improvements or they might be completely missing. But that depends on the task the blender is meant to be used for. (You might not need slick race tires for your car when you use it for daily transportation but some one might need it for drag racing - so to speak).

As far as I’m concerned Blender Market is necessary the more development cycles are in process more bugs, features and improvements are handled. The fact that the market is constructed by CG cookie crew is better since they have been there a long time and I personally believe they have an accurate understanding and limits of open source and consider the interest of BF as well as theirs (you can do things crudely and elegantly - Cookie is the latter).

Finally the life cycle of addons will probably be limited to the life cycle of a Blender Main version like (1.0 - 2.5 - 2.8 - 3.0 etc… ). Open source projects are developed rapidly and things change quickly. You need to keep your addon product in working order and up to date, but Blender Main versions can make drastic, huge changes to the API which might make the addon stop working, require a refactor, a rewrite or redesign.

Anyway you can always create a counter initiative which creates free addons - Blender Flea Market - :wink:

13

Little moderation note: Let’s lay off the insults and avoid quote battles here, please.

On-topic: Please remember that (AFAIK) every add-on on the Blender Market is GPL-licensed. There’s nothing legally preventing anyone from bundling purchased add-ons with a free release of Blender. Would it be a bit of a jerk move? Yes. But totally legal.

On a related note: Since Blender developers have moved to Git as its version control, it’s no longer “trunk”. It’s more proper to refer to that as “master”

14

On the other hand you all use mobile (smart) phones, drink cola, eat junk… steal from each other, destroy nature, communities, countries, world, yet you preach morals of GPL use in open source community.
Just do what you believe it’s best for life.

15

@Fweeb

first think that came to my mind when I saw “trunk”

@Burnin

drinking cola destroys nature?
okay

16

Christ on a crutch here we go with the patented post with quotes after quotes bracketed. As if we somehow all need more secondary schooling. ACE picked up on the original post with no problem and answered it. I think I will take that to the bank since it answered my question. What a damn trip.

17

I think it’s the spirit of the open source ideology. If OS developers are so desperate to get money from their projects with crowd funding and addons that somehow go around the OS ideology and are simply commercial products, then why they can’t just leave the OS and start creating actual commercial programs? The explanation must be that OS market is a special kind of market sector that simply can be exploited so someone has to do it. Still, it makes my heart break when I think of the original open source ideology and people who conceived it.

18

@theoldghost:
Multiple people answered your question (including myself). Multiple people didn’t understand your original post (including myself). The first personal insult in the thread was from someone wanting us to kiss their backside. I’m not exactly sure, given your approach, what else you were expecting.

@Krice:
The spirit of open-source ideology? Serious question and all, but whose spirit exactly? Stallman is not only fine with the selling of GPL-licensed software (so long as the conditions of the license kept), but actively encourages it. Ton is not only fine with the selling of software in/into open-source, he encourages it and did so himself (Blender was open-sourced AFTER he organised a successful campaign to raise €100K remember?). Similar sentiments, actions, and expressed ideologies go for other open-source luminaries such as Torvalds, de Raadt, Raymond, and Moglen.

The spirit of open-source is about sharing the code and allowing those that receive the code to also share it. Even the Free Software Foundation differentiates between “free as in beer” and “free as in freedom”. That some people have taken that to mean that open-software must be developed for free or from donations was not where the open source movement came from and not where the movers and shakers of the current movement are focusing on.

Listen to Ton next time he discusses Blender’s open-source / free software nature. Listen to the arguments he makes for that being a good thing. Compare how often he talks about developers having to rely on donations to, say, the ability for a studio to alter the software to their desired usage.

19

I think Stallman was one of the first who realized the market sector in the open source world (and he himself became a strange spokesperson of the false ideology connected to monetization of OS), but the idea of open source is more radical than many people understand. How could they, when they live in a world that is built on money. When money became an essential part of OS the ideology was washed out and in practice became just another way to make money.

20

Free Software is perhaps more radical, but not Open Source. Neither is against commercialization so much as they’re against proprietary software. Stallman doesn’t even like the term Open Source because it intentionally avoids his word games.

Open Source’s intentions from the start (1998) were to make free software more commercially viable. From Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

The term “open source” was first proposed by a group of people in the free software movement who were critical of the political agenda and moral philosophy implied in the term “free software” and sought to reframe the discourse to reflect a more commercially minded position.