I think open source is at it's best when someone just puts something out into the world and decides to takes a back seat. The FE guys are actively developing the platform, it's theirs and they are best suited to develop it further.
Don't be calus Guy, i don't think paul has anything against open source, he is just saying that successful examples of it in co-relation with the complexity of the tools we use are few and far between. The FE guys will probably keep denying the consolidation of a DCC even as they pave over the last panel of the Maya UI with KL :P On 12 December 2014 at 18:49, Paul Doyle <[email protected]> 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]> > 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >>
