CGPress uses technology like cookies to analyse the number of visitors to our site and how it is navigated. We DO NOT sell or profit from your data beyond displaying inconspicuous adverts relevant to CG artists. It'd really help us out if you could accept the cookies, but of course we appreciate your choice not to share data.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
BTW I forgot to say that for the time being it works only on windows, no Linux or OSx version.
Cheers!
Thanks for the note – updated!
Results look great! Looking forward to version for 2.8 whenever that comes out.
YOu should start playing with 2.8 beta, it´s already pretty stable, we are about to start working with it, the only thing holding us back is that we are waiting a pair of addons to be ported over, but so far addons are being ported pretty fast 🙂
Don´t wait until release, not that it´s Beta it´s pretty stable 🙂
@Juang3d
Not to derail this too much but I’m just wondering whether you know if there is anything in the works to resolve the 3rd party render engine licensing / development issues?
There is no issue at all, it all depends on the developer, for example it is publicly known that Redshift was looking for a Blender developer for their integration in Blender, and while I know some more things I won’t say anything public, I hope this hint is good enough.
I’ll just say that there is no problem, the licensing issues are easy to overcome by any developer and can be done 🙂
Well thats not quite what I am hearing from some of the developers and certain people from the Blender community to be honest.
While I’ve heard that the licensing issues can be circumvented the solution is supposedly not the most optimal one especially with newer rendering engines.
Could be wrong though 🙂
Thanks for commenting though!
Regarding the solution, it is there, and it can be done without any problem, half of the Blender community still thinks that GPL is blocking things, when that is simply not true, but that is because there is a lack of licensing understanding, what GPL means and what GPL obbligates you.
Why does Octane has a Blender version for example? used in production.
Also, an Arnold bridge is under development by a third party, because Autodesk does not want to develop any Blender bridge of course LOL
Are you forced to do some things in a different way? yes, but do you develop a Maya plugin in the same way as a Max plugin and in the same way as a Modo plugin and go on? nope… why are Vray for Max and Vray for Maya so different in features? (for example the support for procedural maps, I think they are more or less on pair right now, but they are completely different)
So as I said, there are some people living in the past, others are not understanding how licensing works and others like to say sh*t about Blender becuase they are scared about it XDDD (I´m not saying that anyone here is saying those things, not in this post and not in another posts)
I´ll repeat up to the infinite: there is no reason to not have any kind of commercial plugin developed for Blender, the developers have to learn and create it with Blender in mind, in the same way they have to create it with other softwares in mind.
Cheers!
Blender architecture permits differently licensed render engine to exist, just the “blender addon” needs to comply with GPL and blender development guidelines. Most commercial engines have a modular architecture for the scene data, that is the part that needs to be implemented in a blender addon, not the whole software package. For example, “Pixar Renderman” has a blender addon, which is GPL compliant. It includes shader nodes, render layers, and lights from renderman. In addition to it, an exporter module, that exports the scene data to renderman. They didn’t need to change their license, just create an integration for blender. Read a bit about the “render API” on blender forums.
Here is the answer if it is possible (from the BlenderFoundation Office, directly from Ton):
https://www.blender.org/get-involved/developers/commercial-add-ons/
“Some companies have contacted Blender Foundation about the possibility of having an add-on in our releases that hook up Blender with their services. For example 3d printing services or render farm providers.
Such add-ons would make it easier for users to submit 3d models to a 3d printing service (one click submit, costs feedback, etc). Or for submitting render jobs to a farm with some feedback mechanisms.
Below is the proposal that was reviewed and accepted by the core developer team.
BF will accept add-ons in a release from commercial vendors/services under the following conditions:
1) Compliancy
The add-on should comply to the same quality/design rules as we do for regular add-ons. That includes license compliancy, but also to not include banners, logos or advertisement.
The add-on would default be not enabled, users have to activate it themselves.
2) Clear user benefit
The add-on should provide functionality to 3D artists that’s useful to have inside Blender. It can’t be for promotional usage of non-functional features (like linking to websites only, for tutorials, book stores, etc).
3) Developed and maintained well
The add-on is being created and maintained by the service provider (or a contracter managed by them). The add-on gets submitted via our regular channels on developer.blender.org.
4) Development Fund support
The service provider signs up for Diamond Sponsor level (250 euro per month). Cancelling a payment then also means we can drop the add-on. Any service that’s not making this profits per month with an add-on, can be considered to be not interested to have such an add-on either.
For more more questions you can always connect to foundation at blender org.
-Ton-
Let´s see… this points are for “services” not for a render engine for example.
Now, for a render engine, you just have to comply with the actual Blender license, GPL, and that is the “theoretical” wall that many developers said that was impossible to break and that make impossible to have commercial plugins inside Blender, and with all due respect, all that discourse is bullshit and I will explain why.
The GPL forces you to do one thing:
IF your addon makes use of any part of the Blender API, it should be licensed under GPL OR a compatible license, like MIT, but in any case, it MUST be open source and with a GPL compatible license.
—————————-
Here is when developers freak out and start saying “wait what? AM I FORCED TO MAKE MY PLUGIN OPEN SOURCE? SCREW BLENDER!!!!” and they don´t go further in the train of though or investigation.
—————————-
Now here is the reality:
If you want to make your plugin Blender compatible, AND make it remain closed, a thing I think it´s perfectly normal, you CAN do that, how? understanding the licensing terms behind GPL.
So what you need to keep open source is the part that is in contact with Blender, the part that makes use of the Blender API, then… what do you need? you need an intermediate library, executable, or part (whatever you want to calle it and whatever you want to program) that HAVE to be Open Source, so both, the addon and that library have to be Open Source, the addon itself it´s more or less the GUI, and it has to be licensed under GPL, your intermediate library (or whatever you want to use) has to be MIT or APACHE, and then, MIT or APACHE allows you to connect that open source software (the intermedate one) to your closed source binaries or whatever, so, in the end… you just need to know how to communicate things with Blender, a bit different than with other softwares? well… maybe, but every software has it´s quirks and bits…
IMPOSSIBLE????????
NOT AT ALL.
It just needs the developers to understand how Open Source Licensing works, and it´s not that hard, for example, the Optix Denoiser is an example, it is Open Source, and the addon was slightly modified to make it GPL compatible, and that´s it.
This is Open Source, you can do whatever you want.
Now… regarding the services, all that, you have to read this very carefully:
“Some companies have contacted Blender Foundation about the possibility of having an add-on in our releases that hook up Blender with their services.”
That is IF you want your addon to be INCLUDED in Blender, I mean… INSTALLED with Vanilla Blender, so you don´t have to install an addon or download an addon from other place.
This is Open Source, as long as you respect the license you can develop whatever you want.
There are two situations:
1.- I have a renderfarm and I want an addon to be included with Blender when people download Blender from Blender.org.
In this case I have to comply to that list, and then my addon will be included INSIDE blender while that list is respected.
2.- I have a renderfarm and I want to distribute an addon in my website or other websites so people can download the addon, install it and use it whenever they want.
In this case that list has nothing to do with this, I can ignore everything, I don´t have ot pay a penny to anyone and I can distribute my addon as long as my addon is GPL licensed (the part that makes use of Blender API) or compatible in the case I don´t use the Blender API.
This things have to stay clear so people understand what GPL license means and that:
THEY ARE NOT FORCED TO PAY ANYTHING TO ANYONE TO DEVELOP SOMETHING FOR BLENDER
Let me create another statement here:
YOU WORK IS YOURS, IS PRIVATE, CLOSED, UNDER THE CREATIVE LICENSE YOU WANT, COPYRIGHT, COPYLEFT OR COPY-“MY MOTHER”, NO MATTER IF YOU´VE CREATED IT WITH BLENDER, IT´S YOURS, NO MATTER WHAT WORK OR WHAT BLEND FILE, NO OPENNESS IS MANDATORY AT ALL FOR ANYTHING YOU CREATE WITH BLENDER
So in the end, there is no wall in front of the developers to create whatever commercial plugin they want, there is no problem with any render engine to create an implementation with Blender and no one is forced to pay nothing to no one, the only thing needed for addons is that they have to be developed with GPL in mind, that´s it.
Hope this clarifies some doubts about all this things because there is a lot of “shit-talk” walking around regarding all this things.
Cheers and happy blending!
This is all irrelevant since no one guarantees you that you do not need to expose your source code. This GPL contract is a mine-field, our own lawyer gave up after some time. He meant it is like reading some fundamental Taliban verses, everybody can interpret it as he wishes…
Here is the Allegorithmics discussion about why they do not port substance to Blender:
https://forum.allegorithmic.com/index.php?topic=405.0
ps. don’t get me wrong, i love Blender and work in it lately very much. It is this thing only that makes me headaches as the developer….
Don´t worry I don´t get you wrong, this is exactly what I said in the first place, they stop at the moment they hear “GPL!!! I have to show my code!!!” and they run away LOL
They can solve the problem FOR SURE, they just have to find a way to solve it, as with any other problem, and for the time being they think it´s not worth the effort, and that is mainly because they think the user base they have in Blender is not worth the effort economically speaking, I respect that, we will see what happens when this changes 🙂
But the speech they give is always the same, and they have the solution in their hands IF they want, any other things are excuses.
They could even develop something in open source that could be implemented in Blender that could benefit everyone being something generic that at the same time allows them to gain the speed the need, as I said, they can overcome the problem IF they want to.
Cheers!
I just saw that thread more in deep and people are proposing solution but they just plainly rejects to do anything about it, they just expect Blender to change their licensing and that´s it.
And there is even a guy that shows an addon developed by himself in alpha version, and there are others in Gumroad that are perfectly working.
As I said, will see what future brings to the table, because there are solutions if they want to 🙂
What?
The license guarantees you that you don´t have to expose your code!
Let´s be clear, everything licensed under GPL MUST be exposed, the “link” that is licensed under MIT or APACHE MUST be exposed, everything else that is closed source and is under your selected license, MUST NOT be exposed, unless a judge requires that, but that applies to any license, closed or not LOL
The key thing here is that your closed source IS NOT touching the GPL AT ALL!
Your closed source is touching the MIT or APACHE licenses, but not the GPL, so no matter what GPL is affecting your addon, it has nothing to do with your closed source part of the program, that is something any lawyer will tell you, or do you think Octane render is prone to expose their code? or chaosgroup with Vray?
This is the problem, people tend to stop in GPL, and once you pass over GPL through MIT or APACHE to connect to your closed source… then there is no GPL in the way.
Allegorithmic is crying for the same thing other devs are crying, and they even know the answer, saying that it would be too slow for real time feedback:
——————–
Sorry, but the GPL is really a big issue (*).
It does not matter if the plugin is bundled or not. What the license forbids is linking a binary compiled from GPL code (here, Blender) with a binary compiled from closed-source code (here, the Substance engine dynamic library) or code released with an incompatible license. This means that it is not legally possible to release a closed source plugin in the form of a compiled dynamic library (.dll, .dylib, .so, depending on your system) for Blender.
Some companies got around that restriction by releasing an open source GPL “dummy” plugin that only acts as a simple bridge between Blender and an external closed source application which does the real work. As there is no link between the GPL binaries and the closed source binary, this is legal. But this trick cannot be applied in our case because getting back the textures from an external application would be too slow to allow for real time feedback when changing the inputs of a substance (which is the whole point of the integration in the first place. Without it, the integration would not offer much over exporting the bitmaps from Designer).
(*) or the fact that the Substance engine is closed source is, if you look at it from the FSF’s point of view.
——————–
Come on, they can do this if they want, it´s not too slow, and even if it was too slow, the advantage of reading the substance in render time is one good reason, but they can do such thing at good speed if the wanted too, the thing is that they stop in the “GPL is a BIG problem… we cannot do that”
Do you know there is a Blender addon to read SBSAR inside Blender?
It goes trhough the export textures route, and it works flawlessly, but I bet Allegorithmic could do far better if they wanted to, it´s a matter of development, they don´t even have to rely on pure python, they can use variants like Cython to increase performance, and the “dummy” addon they say, it´s not dummy, it´s a bridge but you can do whatever you want with that, and of course you need textures to be shown in the viewport, no matter what kind of textures, they are in the end preview textures, we should really know why is that slow as they say to really understand what is the problem.
They have a thing called substance engine that works in their secret way, that´s ok, that is what gives them speed apparently, I´m sure they can do something to overcome any problem, saying is too slow is not an answer because if that were the reason, why Substance came to max in the first place… that was slow and unusable and expensive.
There is a solution if they want to, Octane did it, Chaosgroup did it, and others did it, will see if they say the same when the user base in Blender grows up to a point they cannot ignore them any more.
Again, GPL can be overcome and they know it, they just have to develop a way to do it properly.
Cheers!
Hello Juang,
Ok, at least we both have the same opinion: there are no critics to Blender, the current GLP is the main show-stopper.
I have had on the table even more dubious snippets from the GPL-contract (the document is gigantic, did you read it? with all additional excerpts and change logs?), where it is even stated that this kind of linking via external “adapter”, depending on a, b and c (lawyer bullshit) may expose the developer and force him to release his main host-application as open source.
No wonder there is not a single serious developer thinking about porting software (look around – from all those renders, Fumes, Cloths, Shaders, Forests, and Streets plug-ins – not a single one moves there). The pool is huge and full of fishes, but they know about the trick with the crocodile :).
BF needs to draw a clear line and position itself in an exact written statement. Everything else is guessing or speculation. I am sure they will not do anything. Time and people are on their side, they just need to sit back, watch and wait till the last one gives up (if I were they, I wouldn’t move either). BF has, in this or another way, a huge leverage.
What i am wondering is why the hell they have created software for the market which is purely commercial and capitalistic (movies, cinema, games, industrial design), where all participants are living from and to earn money – and then plugged-in a neo-radical, communist manifest and wrapped their software in a kind of Hamas proclamation. If they like and share the Mao or Fidel Kastro ideology (what they do apparently), then they should have made some children painting software, VR-Sketch tools or whatever, where i don’t care. And terrorize there the 1$-App and Prototype-AR developers. 🙂
ps. I know many fans are reading this, they will save this text and terrorize me with it in 5 years with it, when Blender becomes the market-leader, despite GPLs. Let me have fun at least today 🙂
hahaha!
Cool text 🙂
Can you point me towards the document you are reviewing and the specific points?
I would like to review it 🙂
Specially because in that case ChaosGroup and Otoy are in danger having to open their softwares with a single BF word… and Chaos Group is know by their well behaviour and their magnificient market practices (even when we did not like the price rising), I´m being sincere here, but Otoy is well known for their Lawyer army, so it would have been a very bad an dangerous movement for them to make a Blender compatible version of Octane, and they did.
So even in that case, belive me, there cannot be any danger at all, Otoy and Fstorm are the prove, other way Fstorm could have defended himself even in the accusations of robbery of code saying that this code is prone to be open and under GPL agreement so they had all the rights to use it, and they did not say that in court, so… I HAAAAAAARDLY belive that there is any danger for any closed source to be forced to open their code in any situation, I don´t have a lawyer army, but they do, and they developed Octane for Blender, exactly the same as Chaos Group developed Vray for Blender 🙂
I don´t like GPL either, but I don´t think it´s an absolute showstopper, I think it´s a showstopper in the mind of many developers, Allegorithmic is saying things that don´t make sene, like that they cannot compile any part of their addon… well, many addons are compiles, like Animation Nodes, they use Cython to gain performance, and they do that very well, they can find a solution.
And they are not in danger, Otoy would not put himself in danger developing a Blender version os Octane 🙂
Cheers!
Anyways I want to make one thing clear, it´s IMPOSSIBLE to change the Blender license, it would need toooooooooooons of people, every single contributor, even my self if I commit a code change and it gets accepeted, to agree on the licensing change, we are talking about A LOT of people, hundreds at least, so it´s not possible, and that is a good thing because that is saving Blender code to be used inside Autodesk, like Eevee for example, and I´m grateful for that 🙂
Cheers!
Juang3D, your studio does character animation does it not? All I want in 2.8 is a max Biped equivalent ( I’m always asking about this). Are these addons your talking about rigging/mocap transfer tools, by any chance? I’m so enthused by 2.8 I want to eventually port all my work to it.
With Mocap, there are addons, there are people using Mocap inside Blender, I have not done it myself yet, but I will.
Now, for a Biped replacement you have different addons, the one that I like the most and is pretty simple is “Rigify”, it comes with Blender, you just have to understand it, but bear in mind that like in Maya you don´t have Biped (because Biped it´s a very special/weird rigging system with some things that are unique to it and others that are also “unique” to it but in a bad way) in Blender you don´t have Biped, you have rigs, and you can compare Rigify or Blenrig with other systems like Human IK, each one with it´s features, pros and cons.
So for me, the Biped equivalent is Rigify, and for Mocap, I know Rigify has been used, but I cannot recommend you a workflow because I still haven´t done it by myself.
BUT with that said, I know this movie has been done entirely with Blender and Mocap:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnmY8w2HizQ
The studio is MAD Entertainment:
http://www.madinnaples.com/
You can contact them and I´m sure they will be happy to share their knowledge with you, I think they are also the main developers of rigify, here you have a talk about the movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqPjmBRxqLI
So, I hope all this helps you 🙂
Thanks, that does clear some things up for me.
what about a replacement for cat and catmotion?? i have yet to see anything like it out of autodesk, its a bit long in the tooth, but it works generally..
Nope, there is nothing like CAT Motion so far, and there is nothing outside max that could be similar, at least that I know.
It´s a pity because for some fast prototyping of a motion it was useful.
Cheers!
I´m sure I answered you, but the comment was waiting for review, maybe because I answered too many times in a short time, but if I don´t see the answer soon I´ll rewrite it 🙂
(It may be because I included some links for you too)
https://blendermarket.com/products/auto-rig-pro
Juan, I was looking a way to change to “3dsmax” controls at least for the viewport navigation than Im going crazy, in 2.79 was easy to change it, but I dont found it on 2.8. they are there?
I think you can´t do a full change right now, you will be able to do the change in the near future, in fact there is going to be an “industry standard” or a “minimal” hotkey mapping to conform to industry usual settings, but right now I think that is not present, it´s one of the things that they must finish during beta.
Anyways let me check if there is a way to change, because in settings there should be some options, but with all the left click, spacebar and tab options thing, I think they messed up a bit some things for customization 🙂
So it works for Eevee?
Eevee does not need this, it does not have noise, and even in the case of low sampling eevee has an internal real time denoiser for the viewport 🙂
Thanks Juang3d