Hi Terry, The 'compliancy' and 'user benefit' rules would be sufficient to function as veto. It's quite subjective anyway :) I will make sure such vendors understand that the judgement of these criteria are being handled by us only. The have to make a convincing case.
-Ton- -------------------------------------------------------- Ton Roosendaal - [email protected] - www.blender.org Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands On 8 Aug, 2013, at 11:16, Terry Wallwork wrote: > On 07/08/13 12:40, Ton Roosendaal wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Hopefully this doesn't become a huge thread - I'd mainly like to get some >> feedback from frequent contributors. >> >> Some companies have contacted me about the possibility of having an add-on >> in our releases that hook up Blender with their services. That's for example >> Shapeways, but also render farm providers. >> >> Such addons would make it easier for users to submit 3d models to a 3d >> printing service (one click submit, costs feedback, etc). Or for submitting >> render jobs to a farm with some feedback mechanisms. >> >> I'm still struggling with how or if we want this... I certainly don't want >> to open up Blender for crappy commercialization with logos, banners, etc. >> >> A workable proposal I formulated is below, for which I'd like some feedback. >> >> ------ >> >> BF will accept add-ons in a release from commercial vendors/services under >> the following conditions: >> >> 1) Compliancy >> The add-on should comply to the same quality/design rules as we do for >> regular add-ons. That includes license compliancy, but also to not include >> banners, logos or advertisement. >> The add-on would default be not enabled, users have to activate it >> themselves. >> >> 2) Clear user benefit >> The add-on should provide functionality to 3D artists that's useful to have >> inside Blender. It can't be for promotional usage of non-functional features >> (like linking to websites only, for tutorials, book stores, etc). >> >> 3) Developed and maintained well >> The add-on is being created and maintained by the service provider (or a >> contracter managed by them). >> >> 4) Development Fund support >> The service provider signs up for Diamond Sponsor level (250 euro per >> month). Cancelling a payment then also means we can drop the add-on. Any >> service that's not making this profits per month with an add-on, can be >> considered to be not interested to have such an add-on either. >> >> >> -Ton- >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> Ton Roosendaal - [email protected] - www.blender.org >> Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute >> Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bf-committers mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > > Hi, > > Would there be some sort of catch all condition which would allow > you to reject an addon even if it meets all the rules you specified. > Giving you overall veto. I ask because the commercial addon writers > will try to game the system if it becomes popular to get addons in Blender. > > Ton/BF having a veto would help stop arguments with writers that try and > game the system. Because then you can just say to them there is > veto/your decisions is final sort of thing. It could act as a safety > valve to keep out the sneaky addons that are gaming. > > Other than that it seem like an excellent idea to me what you are proposing. > > Terry Wallwork > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
