🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jun 2022 11:34:33 UTC No. 904985
>blender addon has a compiled c++ module required to run
>developer has mode over $150,000 usd off the addon on blendermarket
>no response to releasing the source even though its licensed under GPL
isnt this illegal? Why is blendermarket a partner in crime?
Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jun 2022 12:10:14 UTC No. 904986
If the module runs externally and the addon is just reading data from that external module then there is no breach of license.
If it runs externally than it doesn't has to be under GPL only the addon has to be.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jun 2022 12:19:39 UTC No. 904991
>>904986
he offers only a paid addon, and doesnt respond to a non paid repo. He is a piece of shit breaking the law and deserves a lawsuit
Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jun 2022 13:34:54 UTC No. 905003
>>904991
I don't think he breaks the law by offering only a paid version, I already explained the loophole. Also why would blendermarket put it on their site if it doesn't comply with the license?
If you don't want to pay, why don't you pirate it?
Which addon are you talking about btw.?
Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jun 2022 13:52:06 UTC No. 905009
the stupid retopo addon? just torrent it you monkey
Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jun 2022 13:57:45 UTC No. 905010
>>905009
Retopoflow is literally free on GitHub
Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jun 2022 14:09:35 UTC No. 905011
This "I want everything for free" attitude disguised as altruism like your quest to not have to pay for anything is somehow noble is why everyone hates you freetards.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jun 2022 14:29:12 UTC No. 905013
>>904991
>doesnt respond to a non paid repo. He is a piece of shit breaking the law and deserves a lawsuit
Eat shit you broke blendlet chudcel
Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jun 2022 15:33:08 UTC No. 905023
>>905009
>>904985
>Watch Bystedt video about retopoflow
>Decides to give it a try
>The addon becomes buggy after 15k tris
>Checks git to see latest versions
>They've been making apple compatibility fixes and small UI bug fixes for months
Just use Topogun if you are low IQ or Maya Quadraw if you have some topology knowledge
Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jun 2022 16:57:42 UTC No. 905042
>>904985
>isnt this illegal?
Show me the list of people who got sued for breaking GPL.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jun 2022 17:03:37 UTC No. 905044
>>905023
Or quad remesher, which just worksTM.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jun 2022 19:07:12 UTC No. 905065
>>904985
>put time and effort into making something
>ask for money in exchange for it
why is this such a difficult concept for blendlets?
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jun 2022 01:13:06 UTC No. 905099
>>905011
>>905065
your argument doesnt hold water.
Get this through your smooth brains - blender itself is a free, GPL program. You release a paid addon on the "market", say its GPL yet dont release its source for free and on top of that obfuscate its behavior by putting everything into a compiled python / C++ external app? Fuck right off and fuck the blender market.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jun 2022 02:17:32 UTC No. 905102
>>904985
>>904991
>>905099
Dear OP,
a) it's completely legal, this has been explained to you itt.
b) smart, productive people are entitled to compensation for their efforts.
c) useless eaters like you are entitled to nothing.
d) kys
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jun 2022 02:33:54 UTC No. 905104
>>905102
>a) it's completely legal, this has been explained to you itt.
he released under the G-P-L yet didnt release his source for free. He is breaking the law, smoothbrain
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jun 2022 06:00:31 UTC No. 905127
>>905104
It's not a violation of the GPL for a GPL program to link a proprietary library as long as it's bundled with the GPL program itself. There is no law being broken, you're just a seething poorfag that has no idea what he's talking about.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jun 2022 06:04:37 UTC No. 905128
>>905104
Additionally, the GPL explicitly states that the source code must be made available *to users.* As per the license, if you don't have the program in your possession, you are not a user, and you don't have entitlement to source code availability.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jun 2022 06:37:35 UTC No. 905133
>>904985
Shut up
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jun 2022 10:50:47 UTC No. 905157
>>905128
>Additionally, the GPL explicitly states that the source code must be made available *to users.* As per the license, if you don't have the program in your possession, you are not a user, and you don't have entitlement to source code availability.
you dont make sense. Someone can upload it to mega, give you the link, and wa-la, you have the program.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jun 2022 11:10:20 UTC No. 905163
lol wtf stfu - you re illigal
Ton Roosendaal, CEO Blender about Addons and GPL 2019 - read it twice moron
twitter.com/tonroosendaal/status/11
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jun 2022 11:13:45 UTC No. 905165
>>905163
if something is free for everyone, its free - for everyone. This is why the "market" is so toxic and harmful to our community. Market != free.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jun 2022 11:24:50 UTC No. 905167
do you get the part about bridge?
Blender addon (bridge) is free and open source, c++ module (other proprietary tools) is not - approved by the Blender god himself.
or do you think you know better than the inventor and boss of Blender?
fucking free2play kidz
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jun 2022 11:38:37 UTC No. 905171
by the way, i have 900$ spend in addons and im allowed to share them cuz GPL, i have addons worth ~3500$ all up2date. just build a share group. but we would never share with guys like you who re toxic like shit.
did you ever spend for blender? no?
so dont talk about free moron.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jun 2022 11:39:37 UTC No. 905172
>>905167
>or do you think you know better than the inventor and boss of Blender?
Are you retarded? Ton didnt invent blender, he bought it after it went belly up. Oh my god this f-ing board.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jun 2022 11:51:17 UTC No. 905175
>>905172
blender was developed in the animation studio NeoGeo, of which the chief developer was Ton Roosendaal.
Who do you think invented it, the investors?
moron2
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jun 2022 11:54:15 UTC No. 905176
>>905175
fuck ton. It went belly up because of his "dev". He might as a well be a nodev
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jun 2022 12:05:19 UTC No. 905179
>>905176
would it have been better if blender had not become an OpenSource project because someone fucked up? Ton has persevered and now we have blender 3.2.
and you are some poor sausage on 4chan writing shit, trying to justify it with more shit - moron without a clue and talking to much ^^
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jun 2022 12:06:52 UTC No. 905180
>>905179
>now we have blender 3.2.
And it's still shit at everything besides modeling. Your point?
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jun 2022 12:17:24 UTC No. 905181
>>905180
Im a modeler, so I have no reason to be sad. if you have to make a living with another specialization, I guess you'll have to pay your tribute to Autodesk.
of course I feel sorry for you. *huge
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jun 2022 12:18:34 UTC No. 905183
Are you done with collective self-deprecation? :3
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jun 2022 12:20:54 UTC No. 905184
>>905181
>Im a modeler
pyw
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jun 2022 12:29:33 UTC No. 905187
>>905184
is it enough for you if I jerk off on a hentai picture and send you the finished artwork?
or would that already seem to you as too much appreciation?
moron3
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jun 2022 12:34:34 UTC No. 905188
>>905187
so you're not a modeler, just a shitposting chud
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Jul 2022 07:39:41 UTC No. 907731
>>905157
that's a LOT of things mate
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:28:00 UTC No. 907738
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Jul 2022 14:08:42 UTC No. 907757
>>904985
>>904991
>nooo let me steal your code
If the dev has made $150k off it there are people that find it useful. Get fucked.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Jul 2022 16:54:09 UTC No. 907788
>>904985
Wait, which addon made that much?
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Jul 2022 01:26:02 UTC No. 907842
>>907788
I wont say, but its an addon that required multiple hoops to be jumped through to ship as an addon. It should have allways been a source code change and a new branch and then merge. It would have been much much easier that way and is of course still entirely within the realm of possibility, but without any financial incentive.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Jul 2022 02:03:48 UTC No. 907849
>>907848
its not that one.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Jul 2022 04:39:44 UTC No. 907859
>>904986
So that the GPL v2 loophole which supposed to be fized on GPL v3?
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Jul 2022 04:45:45 UTC No. 907862
>>907859
No, GPL v3 still doesn't have any say on the code that doesn't actually use any GPL v3 code. Even the dynamic linking part is legally dubious and never tested in court.
If you never actually make a copy, copy right doesn't apply. It's not that difficult to figure out.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Jul 2022 11:27:23 UTC No. 907883
>>907862
>GPL – All users have the rights to obtain, modify and redistribute the full source code of your application. Your users are granted rights founded on the four freedoms of the GNU General Public License.
>the FULL source code
what is there to misunderstand, here?
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Jul 2022 16:10:26 UTC No. 907900
>>907883
The fact that it is a copyright clause. It only applies where there is a copy.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Jul 2022 16:22:29 UTC No. 907902
>>907900
the GPL requires full source code like i just quoted. Was it provided - yes or no? If no, why are you using a license which specifically says it requires what you didn't provide?
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Jul 2022 16:42:39 UTC No. 907908
>>907902
If you run GPL software inside Microsoft Windows, it doesn't force Microsoft to open source Windows. Just like if you run a separate non-GPL software that you simply communicate with, there's no requirement to share that code.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Jul 2022 18:26:14 UTC No. 907921
>>907908
the application depends on this other part that he decided to close source to get the advertised functaionlity. Its a violation and hes doing it just so he could get onto the blendermarket. Let me repeat and be very very clear : to get the _advertised_ functionality, he needs the closed source part. Without it, he quite literally has nothing. I have seen what he has as open source when you download the zip from blendermarket and let me tell you, it cannot do jack shit. This is not legal
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Jul 2022 18:29:58 UTC No. 907922
>>907908
additionally, blender runs on linux and has for almost 3 decades
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Jul 2022 20:34:48 UTC No. 907943
I'm a complete freetard. You don't get to be a freetard if you don't understand how free software licenses work.
Somebody making their code GPL does not obligate them to do shit. Their license applies to people who do not hold copyright. The licenses aren't binding for the author themselves, and even if they were, it would only be enforceable by the author deciding to sue themselves for copyright violation, which is ridiculous.
If you think they're violating somebody else's license, that's another matter, but if you ever wonder "is this person violating their own license?", you really don't understand copyright or software licensing at all.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Jul 2022 20:42:53 UTC No. 907945
>>907943
their code is not gpl if only 1% of their code is gpl to satisfy the requirement to sell on blendermarket and the other 99% is non-gpl. Fuck off.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Jul 2022 00:33:38 UTC No. 907983
>>907921
>>907945
t. butthurt freeloader
If you think dynamically linking against closed source binaries is a gross violation of the GPL, report it to Blendermarket, see how long it takes them to laugh you out the door in their response.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Jul 2022 01:39:07 UTC No. 907989
>>907983
do you think richard stallman when he created the GPL ever intended the scenario i have described over and over again to ever come to fruition you absolute joke?
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Jul 2022 04:25:36 UTC No. 908007
>>907989
Freeloader-sama, there's nothing ratified in the GPL that states calling functions from a closed-source binary is a license violation. If it was, GPL programs wouldn't be able to run under Windows or a large number of Linux distributions.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Jul 2022 06:54:44 UTC No. 908021
>>908007
Again, do you think richard stallman who absolutely HATES windows intends the gpl to be used like i described again and again?
Yes or no, dummy
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Jul 2022 07:16:38 UTC No. 908022
>>907921
If you have a bridge addon that only communicates with the closed source part through standard I/O or TCP/IP it doesn't violate GPL3
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Jul 2022 07:44:28 UTC No. 908023
>>908021
Are you seriously trying to make a case by appealing to your headcanon about RMS's personal feefees? Are you 12?
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Jul 2022 10:33:27 UTC No. 908030
>>908023
Im not talking about some randoms opinion, im talking about the creator of the license and one of the most influnetial people in computiing history. How DARE you try tondiscredit me
Again
...
Yes... Or no?
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Jul 2022 13:37:25 UTC No. 908050
>>908021
>>908030
>M-MUH FREETARD-SAMA'S FEE-FEES!!!
Your fanfic about some toe fungus eater doesn't change the fact that there isn't a single version of the GPL that forbids interfacing with a proprietary external binary.
If Stallman was half as much of a militant freetard as you think he is, the LGPL wouldn't even exist. Cough up the $30 for the addon or fuck off, Pedro.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Jul 2022 16:05:51 UTC No. 908060
>>907983
It literally is. The GPL is concerned with distribution, though. You can link GPL code with proprietary code and use it all you want, but distributing it is illegal.
The blender Python API is also considered linking per GPL, but the API doesn't encompass the GPL by signature, only actual use.
Therefore, if you distribute a plug-in with a copy of Blender, it has to be GPL in its entirety. If you distribute a plug-in that uses the Blender Python API, it can be any license, but you may not distribute it with a copy of Blender.
If you own GPL code, you may intermix it with incompatible licenses because the only person who could sue you for the violation is the copyright holder, ie. yourself. Nobody else may distribute it or redistribute it because they'd be violating your license.
The GPL is not concerned with APIs, and isn't concerned with linking as an action itself. It's entirely concerned with distribution of GPL code and other code that is linked against GPL code.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Jul 2022 16:11:36 UTC No. 908061
>>908060
The OS example doesn't matter in the least. Windows APIs being used by GPL code isn't a violation unless the non-GPL code is distributed with the GPL code. This means that it would be a violation for Microsoft to distribute Windows with GPL components. GPL programs running with a non-GPL kernel are legitimately a gray area that has never been tested in court. Many Linux distros could theoretically be in violation by using a GPL 2.0 kernel and packaging GPL 3 programs, as the licenses are incompatible, except I think the kernel license has an explicit exception for other licenses in userspace software.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Jul 2022 17:15:32 UTC No. 908068
>>908061
>This means that it would be a violation for Microsoft to distribute Windows with GPL components.
and wasnt the acronymn NIH (Not Invented Here) made by referring to micro$oft, anon? You're digging yourself ever deeper.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Jul 2022 17:42:46 UTC No. 908070
>>908068
No. It's a general term that's used everywhere in programming. It has nothing to do with licensing, and usually just means reinventing the wheel just for the sake of having done it yourself.
I really don't understand what you mean by "digging yourself even deeper". I've posted three times in this thread and you're the second person who has even replied to me.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Jul 2022 17:50:43 UTC No. 908071
>>908070
if you read about the industry in newspapers and newsgroups online in the early 90s the term NIH was specifically associated with micro$oft
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Jul 2022 19:09:16 UTC No. 908082
>>908071
It's been associated with Microsoft (for good reason), but it has always also been used without reference to Microsoft. Microsoft was the most famous example during that period, but it's been prevalent at large tech companies forever. I still don't understand why you're bringing up NIH at all, though.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Jul 2022 22:01:30 UTC No. 908100
>>908082
you keep on bringing up strawmen of micro$oft using GPL in windows, dummy
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Jul 2022 02:22:52 UTC No. 908130
>>908100
What strawman? It was an example of using an API of a non-GPL codebase from a GPL codebase. The point is just that distribution is what matters as far as GPL is concerned.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Jul 2022 13:14:07 UTC No. 908175
>>908130
does Micro$oft have GPL in their codebase, yes or no, strawman?
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:38:19 UTC No. 910454
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Jul 2022 20:41:43 UTC No. 910517
Freetards deserve the rope.