Re: [Bf-committers] bind poses in Blender for the Collada 1.4.1 plugin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19.11.2010 6:10, Benjamin Tolputt wrote: On 19/11/2010 10:08 AM, Alex Combas wrote: I build with this feature regularly, and while it is still not complete (no animation) it does work reasonably well in general While it is buggy temperamental about what animation it will import, I'd like to mention that some animation is imported fine (so long as it is attached to an armature with mesh). I know this because I've been using it extensively getting animation out of Poser and into my game engine via Blender :) Indeed it would be much nicer to have consolidated effort on improving the existing COLLADA support. I invite Emiliano Gambaretto and Stefano Corazza to join the COLLADA team, fixing up and improving the current code base. Currently Martijn Berger (JuicyFruit) is writing a set of patches to improve the importer, and Wenzel Jakob has been sending in patches too. /Nathan - -- Nathan Letwory Letwory Interactive http://www.letworyinteractive.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM5k2WAAoJEKtfN7KsE0TtRVwIAIJ3m2v0TCgdiw1ZuOgXLVe3 NLEDF8CrMcsHFudNuQ9P1oqBBEwAP1bqs0yrA0OCNHfpVRhhct7MA2qh2BtTJOFh CEX9yxONHju9ONcCFHmX2eJjWpqNcNeKxSIyPPNSjS3FggVcFbsDLaHMpBzaw4E5 MCU/DjGNxuV4QSFY9GHU96AESXmYFR1F0aZ0bWf7XdO5hcFu6+jdkZwOrG3kLJMk 7PM6cB4v4bRhlDO1mSZBcYgDZSnJVZKmyKVOvSWuqgpVwvinjplYuoFSuzyXkoJD /OuU70ZJ3R/9Yc8Pxx5rxZG1ofJT5gaiEhghH0BSQ/fO5eHomPigE96cqG+zi3c= =pVjd -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] extension clause
Alex Combas blenderw...@gmail.com wrote: Similarly, virtually zero companies actually go the route of making a modified internal version of GPL software. How would someone confirm that? By virtue of the fact that it's not meant for external distribution, it's obviously something that wouldn't by widely publicized. Furthermore, I'm not sure how the 'sharing with 3rd party contractors constitutes distribution' argument holds any water. Are you saying that these companies - many of which are used to treating source code as trade secret - are going to have trouble keeping code private and secret simply because it's linked to GPL code? I'm sorry, but that doesn't even begin to make sense to me. -Jason ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Blender Tutorial from a hospital bed :)
thanks mr alex. its not that im not feeling good. i have a broken back and i cant move. other than that im fine. lol On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Alex Combas blenderw...@gmail.com wrote: I liked it as well. Node stuff is always interesting. Hope you're feeling better soon. On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Jaevixa McNomera jjv@gmail.com wrote: Great to see fighting spirit in this way. I'm eager to see the rest of her series :) Thanks Mr. Letwory! I'm so happy people like it. I don't get to do much of anything but lay here in a bed all day, so makes me quite happy that people enjoy it. God Bless you everyone! Jae ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] extension clause
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Jason van Gumster ja...@handturkeystudios.com wrote: Alex Combas blenderw...@gmail.com wrote: Similarly, virtually zero companies actually go the route of making a modified internal version of GPL software. How would someone confirm that? By virtue of the fact that it's not meant for external distribution, it's obviously something that wouldn't by widely publicized. They aren't permitted legally to share their code, but there is nothing to restrict them to talk about what they are doing, but I haven't heard of any, have you? Furthermore, I'm not sure how the 'sharing with 3rd party contractors constitutes distribution' argument holds any water. Are you saying that these companies - many of which are used to treating source code as trade secret - are going to have trouble keeping code private and secret simply because it's linked to GPL code? I'm sorry, but that doesn't even begin to make sense to me. First of all, you're trying to look at the argument logically and rationally. What makes you think that companies are logical and rational when it comes to their proprietary intellectual property? Imagine the fear that making just one false step and you could be legally forced to open-source your top secret proprietary project. There is actually a measure of rationality behind such a fear. Hey, did you just sell your partner a license to use your code? Guess what you just distributed it! Got any GPL code in there? Guess what, your whole code base could now be legally subject to the terms of the GPL. Whoops. Who is to say that in the future a company might not want to sell a license to one of their partners? This is why companies firewall their closed-source projects from their open-source projects, and are not likely to ever work on a closed source modifications for Blender even if they do not have any plans at the moment to ever distribute. ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] extension clause
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Alex Combas blenderw...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Jason van Gumster ja...@handturkeystudios.com wrote: Alex Combas blenderw...@gmail.com wrote: Similarly, virtually zero companies actually go the route of making a modified internal version of GPL software. How would someone confirm that? By virtue of the fact that it's not meant for external distribution, it's obviously something that wouldn't by widely publicized. They aren't permitted legally to share their code, but there is nothing to restrict them to talk about what they are doing, but I haven't heard of any, have you? It is *well* known that companies were using modified gpl'd software on their servers and not releasing their changes. The GPLv3 even addressed this 'non-issue'. Also, the majority of the gpl violations come from a company (or their vendors) using gpl'd software 'internally' which accidently ends up in the final public release...I'm guessing on the 'majority' part btw in case someone wants to see statistics or something but most of the ones I've heard of fit that pattern -- aside from the cases where someone just changes the name of an app and sells it as their own without also providing the source code. Finally, it also seems that most companies are pretty tight-lipped about what goes on 'internally' due to the fear of losing their competitive advantage. If you had a step up on the competition from integrating FLOSS into your internal tools would you seriously go tell the competition? ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] extension clause
I agree that company lawyers tend to be paranoid. I deal with that frequently in oil/gas equipment manufacturing. Imagine the fear that making just one false step and you could be legally forced to open-source your top secret proprietary project. Has anyone here ever heard of a single case where a company has been forced to opensource their code due to the gpl? Every case that I have ever seen, the guilty party was given a choice: 1. Do what is necessary to comply with the license (ie properly distribute the code as per the gpl or replace the gpl'd code with code under a compatible license) 2. Stop distributing the software If someone in the company or party to internal distribution leaks the software, they, not the company have committed copyright infringement for the gpl'd code as well as the proprietary software. Any person who further distributes the software is also guilty. One question that I have... based on the agreement between the Blender Foundation and NaN for the release of Blender that we all raised money for, would it even be possible to relicense Blender code from that era without running into breach of contract issues? Matt ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] extension clause
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Matt Henley nwm...@gmail.com wrote: I agree that company lawyers tend to be paranoid. I deal with that frequently in oil/gas equipment manufacturing. Right, I'm just saying this is the view that some companies would have. I'm not saying this is my view, or the right view, or even a smart view. Imagine the fear that making just one false step and you could be legally forced to open-source your top secret proprietary project. Has anyone here ever heard of a single case where a company has been forced to opensource their code due to the gpl? Every case that I have ever seen, the guilty party was given a choice: Well the GPL has never been defended in court from what I've heard, so although there has been many public cases of companies infringing upon the GPL that I have heard about they must have always come to terms in one way or another without resorting to litigation (so far). That doesn't mean that companies would not still be paranoid about this type of thing happening to them. ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] extension clause
Hi, Since relicensing is going to be very difficult and communicating from another process messy, maybe we could simply do this. If there is agreement, we could make a statement as developers that we don't consider certain things (external render engines, game engines, exporter libraries) as a derived work, and as such, they don't need to be GPL. Now, this is clearly a gray area, and there are different interpretations of what a derived work is, but I think it may be a reasonable assurance for developers not associated with the company to write plugins for 3Delight, Vray or the FBX library for example. It seems to me that worst case, the plugin becomes invalid, but if a large part of the copyright holders say they have no problem with it, this chance is quite small. It doesn't solve the problem for companies making their own plugins. Brecht. ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
[Bf-committers] lcms?
Hey devs, I know there is code in Blender that uses lcms, but I've heard that code isn't called and doesn't actually do anything, and yet I see in public build files that a lot of people are still building with lcms support. So is lcms code actually active, are there plans to make it active if not? Or should we all just stop building with lcms and not mention it ever again ;) If we could get a definitive answer on this that would be great. Thanks, Alex ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] lcms?
Thanks Matt, I will try to spread the word. ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] extension clause
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Alex Combas blenderw...@gmail.com wrote: Well the GPL has never been defended in court from what I've heard... You heard wrong... ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] extension clause
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Dan Eicher d...@trollwerks.org wrote: On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Alex Combas blenderw...@gmail.com wrote: Well the GPL has never been defended in court from what I've heard... You heard wrong... Yes, I am. Thanks for pointing that out. The majority settle out of court, but there have been a few full scale lawsuits where the GPL was defended and won. So... Would these lawsuits make companies less paranoid about incorporating GPL software, or more. ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Status of C++
I could not give you a precise answer but many Blender modules are completely written in C++, elbeem fluid simulator is one of them and besides C and C++ have bridges that makes hybrid code possible. I do agree with you that some tasks are easier to do in a completely Object Oriented environment rather than a structured paradigm, readability will be increased a lot among other benefits, perhaps in the future Blender could be rewritten under a C++ base only but I don't see that happen anytime soon, and C is not so bad after all ;) Cheers Farsthary I've looked in a lot of places and Googled, but haven't found any answer: What is the status of C++ in Blender? Should I just take a hint from the fact that it is almost all written in C, or is that an artifact of it being 15 years old? I know that it isn't the easiest language out there, but std::vector is kinda nice, and basic single inheritance, too. I have no problem with C, but that syntactic sugar of C++ is sweet in small doses. /LS ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
