I explained the reasoning, I'm not going to go into this topic any further.
On 12 December 2014 at 13:47, Guy Rabiller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > But I have the feeling you think open-source automatically means 'free'. > > Your business is not selling software (I hope), your business is selling > licenses. > > Using a dual-licenses approach, it would be free to use for non-commercial > open-sourced projects, but studios would still have to pay licenses for > proprietary development. So no change here in terms of business, this could > even be transparent for your existing customers. Nothing would change for > them and you would get the same amount of money from them. > > Yet, instead allowing them to distribute free Fabric tools if they choose > to, this could perhaps allow them to sell Fabric tools too. Better business > model for everyone. > > While being open-sourced and free for non commercial developments, trust > is back and open-sourced communities developments could start. > > ps: a contract means nothing if a company disappear, I believe I'm not the > only one who has experienced that. > > Cheers, > Guy. > -- > > guy rabiller | radfac founder | raa.tel > > > On 12/12/14 19:01, Paul Doyle wrote: > > The fact is there are no successful open-source companies in our industry > because the numbers don't work. The companies that do open-source in our > industry are doing something else as their main business. Our main business > is selling software. Typically a software company open-sources if they see > an opportunity to build a services business/premium support model around > their software - the conversion percentages here are typically <5% of the > user base and often much lower. Simply put - our industry is too technical > ("we don't need no stinking support") and too small (how many studios are > there globally above 10 employees?) for that to be viable, we would die. > > As for trust - that was really my point in my last email. Fabric makes > guarantees through our licensing agreements with customers - they don't > have to trust what I tell them, they have a contract that gives them what > they need. > > I get that many people feel burned and why that makes a very compelling > argument for OSS alternatives. If we felt that we could be successful doing > that, then we'd be doing it. There is no moral opposition to the notion of > open-sourcing, it's a matter of doing such a thing if and when it makes > sense. Right now that's not our position. > > > On 12 December 2014 at 12:33, Guy Rabiller <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> >> Yeah well, with all the lies Autodesk gave us, how come can you expect to >> be trusted ? >> >> Nothing personal though, you are not responsible. >> >> But the trust is lost, broken, irreversibly. They did a pretty good job >> at it. Blame them. >> >> The only projects and products that deserve trust are open sourced >> projects. Period. >> >> Yet I still don't understand why you are so afraid to open source the >> core using a dual license. Take Berkeley DB from Oracle for instance. Open >> sourced, dual licensed. I don't think Oracle stakes holders are less >> business oriented than Autodesk ones. Wiser perhaps ? >> >> Cheers, >> Guy. >> -- >> >> guy rabiller | radfac founder | raa.tel >> >> >> On 12/12/14 18:10, Paul Doyle wrote: >> >> Our customers all have agreements that protect them, and next year we'll >> be pushing on the 3rd party licensing model which will also allow people to >> distribute free Fabric tools if they choose to. If someone wanted to build >> a full-on DCC then we'd have a license agreement that would protect them as >> well. >> >> There are more approaches to this than just 'open source all the >> things!'. >> >> On 12 December 2014 at 11:27, Guy Rabiller <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Create a whole dcc on top of a proprietary closed source product that >>> can disappear or be trashed at any time ? Are you kidding ? Will you ever >>> learn ? >>> >>> I guess loosing Softimage was not enough for you ? Or you simply don't >>> care ? >>> >>> I still do. For a long time. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Guy. >>> -- >>> >>> guy rabiller | radfac founder | raa.tel >>> >>> >>> On 12/12/14 14:39, Ahmidou Lyazidi wrote: >>> >>> Il don't see the need to expose the core either, you can already create >>> a whole dcc by yourself. You can extend the Splice standalone and add as >>> many feature as you want. You can add/derive/modify all the KL objects. You >>> can draw whatever you want in modern opengl and interact with the objects >>> in the viewport. Integrate. c++ libraries and finally customize the ui with >>> QT. >>> What would you like to do by changing the core? >>> Le 12 déc. 2014 06:00, "Thomas Mansencal" <[email protected]> >>> a écrit : >>> >>>> Excellent! I'm not a rigger but my friends rigger are now aware :) >>>> >>>> On Fri Dec 12 2014 at 10:31:36 AM Sebastien Sterling < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hot shit this stuff looks cool, just make a DCC already :P >>>>> >>>>> Na i get why that can't be a priority right now, still all this >>>>> awsome... >>>>> >>>>> We are hungry for more i'm sure :) so congrats to all and to you >>>>> Paul. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 12 December 2014 at 08:23, Nicolas Esposito <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Great job guys! >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm very interested especially regarding the DeltaMush modifier, >>>>>> looks fantastic! >>>>>> >>>>>> Very interesting is the Blendshapes rig...about that I'm thinking >>>>>> that the debugging of the blendshape could be used for realtime >>>>>> deformation >>>>>> ( displacement or wrinkle maps ) that triggers automatically ( ala >>>>>> Facerobot but much quicker ). >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm still not familiar with Fabric Engine so pardon my questions >>>>>> but: >>>>>> - Regarding the captain atom rig, if I understood correctly you are >>>>>> able via Alembic to bake all the deformation you setup with the Rigging >>>>>> Toolbox and then via script apply those deformation on the source mesh >>>>>> itself, right? so, after I did all the deformations I want I can simply >>>>>> bake those deformations with a script and then export the rig itself in >>>>>> FBX >>>>>> and those deformations are baked in, right? >>>>>> >>>>>> - Same question, but related to tge blendshape rig...at 22.10 the >>>>>> locator is described as a container which holds the geometry, but there's >>>>>> no actual geometry in the scene...in this case how the export in FBX >>>>>> would >>>>>> work? >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers guys, this looks awesome! >>>>>> >>>>>> 2014-12-12 3:46 GMT+01:00 Paul Doyle <[email protected]>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Guy - no, we're not planning to open-source the core. Thanks for >>>>>>> the analysis of our client base and users ;) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11 December 2014 at 21:28, Guy Rabiller <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Paul, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Still no plan to make the Core open sourced (perhaps dual licensed >>>>>>>> ala Oracle) and available to open sourced projects ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I see you are now in need for more users/clients, perhaps this >>>>>>>> could be the right time ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Guy. >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> guy rabiller | radfac founder | raa.tel >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11/12/14 22:48, Paul Doyle wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (X-Post from 3DPro) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi everyone - something that has come up a few times with >>>>>>>> customers has been 'can you give us some sample deformers written in >>>>>>>> KL for >>>>>>>> us to get started?'. The Rigging Toolbox is our pass at doing just >>>>>>>> that: a >>>>>>>> public repo where people can see how we've approached things like delta >>>>>>>> mush (is it too late to be considered part of the DM hype train?) and >>>>>>>> contribute back their own work if they want to. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> video here: https://vimeo.com/114272905 >>>>>>>> website + link to repo: http://fabricengine.com/rigging-toolbox/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "The Rigging Toolbox provides a collection of production relevant >>>>>>>> tools that can be used when building character pipelines using Fabric >>>>>>>> Engine. These tools can be used as is, or purely as reference as you >>>>>>>> build >>>>>>>> your own implementations. Recently we have added a suite of deformers >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> are now working on leveraging our GPU compute capabilities with these >>>>>>>> deformers." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The rigging toolbox works in Maya, Max and Softimage with our >>>>>>>> Splice plugin, so this all has the usual Fabric benefits of >>>>>>>> encapsulation >>>>>>>> and portability. As we move to visual programming next year, this work >>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>> all be compatible there as well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Last infomercial piece: http://fabricengine.com/get-fabric/ Fabric >>>>>>>> is free for individuals and we're giving 50 free licenses to studios, >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> helps when you're hoping people will contribute to a project like this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >
