No stress here.
Your reasoning is biased by the false assumption (tunnel-vision?)
open-source == free, and your are not even listening to the arguments
that show otherwise.
That's fine with me, and confirms my trust-level.
Cheers,
Guy.
--
guy rabiller | radfac founder | raa.tel
On 12/12/14 19:49, Paul Doyle wrote:
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]
<mailto:[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 <http://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] <mailto:[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 <http://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] <mailto:[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 <http://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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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
<http://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
