Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jan 2022 01:18:04 UTC No. 873320

it's open source retard

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jan 2022 04:44:24 UTC No. 873358

they dont need to buy it they can just fork it, make a proprietary frontend to interact with the blender backend, and have their multi million dollar lawyers cover their asses

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jan 2022 05:37:00 UTC No. 873364

>>873317
The Blender Foundation is a nonprofit no one owns it therefore no one can buy it, a for profit can do corporate shenanigans to gain control of the nonprofit organization.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jan 2022 05:59:02 UTC No. 873369

Oh not this retardation again.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jan 2022 09:51:20 UTC No. 873399

>>873358
People would decompile it and find it out.
The case could be taken to court in a different country where the court system is less broken.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jan 2022 10:05:49 UTC No. 873400

>>873317
Not only can anyone can instantly fork it which I'm sure would happen within minutes of a theoretical buyout announcement, but the original product itself has to remain GPL. They would have a really hard time restricting it to the Creative Cloud ecosystem.

Besides, Adobe is a sponsor of the Blender Foundation and they already have Substance 3D Stager, so I'm sure that's good enough for them.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jan 2022 10:25:53 UTC No. 873402

>>873317
because the 'Blender' name is owned by everyone who has contributed code to the project, as per the GPL license.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jan 2022 11:49:04 UTC No. 873406

>>873364
>The Blender Foundation is a nonprofit
Roosendaal wage went from 30k to 70k in 2 years lmao

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jan 2022 13:16:48 UTC No. 873413

even i have some contributions in blender

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jan 2022 15:46:26 UTC No. 873437

>>873406
That is poverty tier in tech

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jan 2022 15:49:06 UTC No. 873438

>>873400
They could relicense new versions under restrictive terms and use their extensive catalog of software patents to improve Blender and impede forks from staying on pair with it.

However, Blender is so bad, architecturally, that they probably won't ever do something like that.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jan 2022 18:05:45 UTC No. 873459

>>873402
This. Individual contributors retain copyright to the specific portions of code they contributed, and it's licensed out to the wider project. The legality of the Linux kernel works the same way.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jan 2022 19:11:05 UTC No. 873469

>>873438
>They could relicense new versions under restrictive terms

The GPL's strong copyleft system prevents the code from being relicensed like that. Plus if they want Blender to stop using the GPL, they have to have the consent of everyone who has ever contributed GPL-licensed code to Blender, and some of those people are dead.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jan 2022 21:01:11 UTC No. 873485

why would you want to use blender code

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jan 2022 23:25:49 UTC No. 873522

>>873469
Most Blender code is copyrighted to the Blender Foundation, so whoever owns them, owns the code. No need to go around asking for permission. For the few parts that are copyrighted to third parties, it's enough to rewrite the code. A motivated company could do it.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jan 2022 23:28:21 UTC No. 873525

>>873522
That's not how GPL works, my dude. I know it's funny to meme about Autodesk buying Blender, but it's practically impossible.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jan 2022 00:17:28 UTC No. 873531

>>873525
It is exactly how copyright works. If you own the code, you can change the license at any time. Blender Foundation owns most of the code, so they can do whatever they want.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jan 2022 00:48:25 UTC No. 873536

>>873531
Anybody who contributed GPL code into Blender didn't actually sign a copyright release and nowhere in the GPL license it says that contribution is an automatic intellectual property release. At least that's what I recall.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jan 2022 01:43:42 UTC No. 873548

>>873536
>Anybody who contributed GPL code into Blender didn't actually sign a copyright release
But they didn't state their copyright. They submitted their code to a work under Blender Foundation's copyright with no explicit mention that individual copyrights are preserved. If Adobe, Autodesk or any other behemoth buys the BF, good luck fighting their lawyers on this.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jan 2022 02:02:44 UTC No. 873551

>retard thinks he found a loophole to the GPL
there's as reason why nobody on big tools touch linux.

If you include GPL code, your entire codebase must be open source.

Good luck getting autodesk/adobe to open source most of their codebase because they wanted to buy an amateur linux tool.

And no, GPL requires ALL the people that has put code into blender to give up their copyright.
Good luck, since several of them are now dead.

t. /g/ autist

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jan 2022 02:05:12 UTC No. 873553

>>873551
thats not how GPL works and theirs no use splaining it to you

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jan 2022 15:33:40 UTC No. 873652

>>873548
If you don't license your work, it's still under copyright. It's not that difficult to comprehend. If you license your work under GPL, anyone who uses it has to also be under GPL. If you try to relicense your work, if you have included GPL code, you have to get an explicit permission from each of the people who contributed GPL code into your project.

Stop being dumb, thank you.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jan 2022 15:43:50 UTC No. 873655

>>873317
it's open source
also they could just say "no"

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jan 2022 19:10:25 UTC No. 873680

>>873551
kys cris, FOSS software sucks

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jan 2022 19:24:16 UTC No. 873688

>>873652
Again. If you contribute your code to a work with the note "Copyright 2015 Blender Foundation", it can definitely be argued that you agreed to having your contribution under BF copyright. That's the reason some projects read something like "Copyright Year Whatever and Contributors" instead. This is not the case for most of Blender's code.

This issue is not as clear as you try to show, and will have to be eventually tested in court.

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jan 2022 03:14:26 UTC No. 873743

>>873406
>nonprofit
>>Roosendaal wage went from 30k to 70k in 2 years lmao
first, learn what a nonprofit company is.
it doesnt mean people work for free.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jan 2022 14:14:21 UTC No. 875022

>>873406
>acting like a 70k pa salary is an outrageous amount in any way at all

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jan 2022 14:32:42 UTC No. 875026

>>873680
Cris devaluates FOSS despite these programs have shown competence.