Facebook joins the Blender Development Fund

I would not worry $120,000 is probably what FB spends on toilet roll every month, defo not enough to influence the blender foundation –

it can certainly influence the direction of the software

“Certainly” based on what?

Blender has survived a lot of years and has evolved during a lot of time without corporate donations, and many corporations made “indecent” offers to the Blender Institute, many others have the dark desire to “kill” Blender, and they know they can’t.

Blender has never been affected by any of these, neither by Intel or AMD or Nvidia, the three are donators, the three fund developments that benefit everyone, including the competitors, but so far neither of them or any other corporation has been able to change the direction of Blender.

Also yes, it’s run by humans, but to do any kind of change you need A LOT of humans agreeing, and some of them, the emajority I would say, will never agree with some changes, for example AntonioYA, the programmer and creator of Grease Pencil, if you want to change anything in the license you would need to remove ALL the grease pencil code and derivatives, something nearly impossible as of today.

Now if you are talking about bribery, well, in the foundation there are several persons, one or two may fall into that, but the people there in general are more related to Blender in an emotional an passionate way than in an economical way, and they would never accept anything that could damage the future of Blender.

So sincerely I think the “fear” is based on how the closed source markets works, how Autodesk works, how other companies works, based on lies and radical changes, ignoring customers and trying to milk them as much as possible.

It’s not the situation here, this is a new or at least a different business model, and classic business dark practices have not place here I’m afraid.

So personally I think the fear is unfounded, or to be more precise, funded over wrong assumptions based on a totally different situation 🙂

Of course this is my opinion, based on what I know and the people I know inside the institute.

I think you have a deep misunderstanding on what happens with the GPL.

As soon as part of the code is licensed under GPLv3, and the rest of the code is compiled with it, all the program is licensed under GPLv3, that does not change the license of previous part of the source, just the binary license and the license of the new parts.

Cycles as an Standalone is Apache, the Cycles code inside Blender is GPL (I don’t remember if it’s 2 or 3) and when it’s compiled it’s automatically GPLv3

This phrase “very unlikely that Blender goes closed source soon, and that shareholder companies takes over” it’s a total non-sense, and it comes from a misunderstanding on how things work with GPL and within the Blender institute.

Regarding the manual, I’ll ask the, can you give me the links where you see the license changes and those things?

Now, the license change where everyone has to agree is not a myth, and the developers has that very clear, I already mentioned AntonioYa, the GP author, but I myself have a patch and I would not agree with that.

And why do you say they don’t care? Because of a license change in the manual?

I think your position regarding Blender licensing is based on miss information and not understanding well how the GPL and it’s versions work.

To delete

Oh! I forgot it was you…
I was going to answer to you in a reasoned way, but I pass, with you it’s always the same… you feel attacked and start a fight, accuse who don’t agree with you, etc… I pass talking with you, thanks 🙂

Yes, I work with two accounts, it’s not a secret.

Juan Gea is my professional account, the CGPRess team knows it, since I use my professional email, that’s why I removed my previous message and pasted it again with my personal account, the only one I use for conversations since it represents my self and not my studio.

Now with that said, there is nothing magical, you may feel attacked, but you feel attacked by anyone that disagrees with you.

Once again you are wrong, there is nothing magical, it’s part of the GPL license system, you may check the compatibility chart for licenses, it’s easy to get there, but I will put the chart here, ANYTHING built within GPLv3 code has to be distributed automatically under the same conditions of the GPLv3.
NOT for everything, that’s why Cycles Standalone is Apache, and Cycles inside Blender is tied to the same GPLv3 rules, you can contact the FSF as I did in the past several times to clarify this.

Now GPLv2 is NOT compatible with GPLv3 UNLESS in the GPLv2 license used the clause “or any later version”.

I will put things easy to you, here is the license compatibility chart:

Here is also the answer to this:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#v2v3Compatibility

So Blender’s code license has not “changed magically” or because the license is not being taken seriously or respectfully, the license is being taken in a very serious and respectfully way, not like what you implied, that’s where the misinformation from you comes.

I’m sorry but you don’t have a clear idea of what the GPL is and what are it’s implications, this is not an attack to you, I see that in your words.

Here is the FSF email in case you want to contact them and clarify your idea about the GPL:

licensing@fsf.org

And just in case you haven’t noticed, you are the toxic person here.

Your opinion man, I’m not the one that starts with “you attacked me” or that have said something that is incorrect, I just said that IMHO you were wrong and then you felt attacked, your problem, not mine, as always 🙂

Fact is, GPL 2 code remains GPL 2 code, even in a compiled exe. It’s as simple as that. You are the one who needs to ask the FSF if you don’t believe it. I already know that.

If a binary is distributed and it’s code includes parts of Apache or GPLv2 code, that code MUST be distributed under the GPLv3 rules, no matter the original license of the code, so nope, I’m sorry but you are wrong.

As I explained it’s not that the code “magically” turns into a different license, but it’s absorbed under the GPLv3 license whenever it’s used in conjunction with that license, you say I don’t understand the basics, but nope, it seems you are the one that don’t understand the “infectious nature” of the GPLv3 license (and the GPL in general).

And yes, I mentioned you the compatibility chart, because the GPLv2 is NOT compatible with the GPLv3 UNLESS it specifies the “OR HIGHER”, and that’s why they can be mixed.

But as I already said any code built in conjunction with GPLv3 code and with it’s binary distributed MUST distribute it’s code under GPLv3 conditions.

For example you don’t get to do a special version of Blender with Cycles and then say that your cycles version inside your blender build is Apache and you have not the obligation to provide anyone with the binary the code or a written offer where you explain where to get it, nope, you have to comply with the GPLv3 rules and you are FORCED to provide the source code TOGETHER with the binary OR a written offer where you explain where and how to get the code, if you don’t comply with one of these conditions you are in violation of the license.

BTW those conditions affects anyone distributing the binary, so not only you will be breaking the license, but also the person using that build and distributing it to others.

Not “magical” conversion, just standard GPLv3 rules.

Here you have some information you may have missed:

Some copyleft licenses allow cross-copyleft combinations with an explicit relicensing clause giving permission to put the code under a different copyleft license. For instance, the CeCILL gives explicit permission to relicense code to GNU GPL version 2 and later versions. If program P is under the CeCILL, and you want to combine it with program Q that’s under GPL version 3 or later, the CeCILL says you can do that and put the combination or merged code under GPL version 3 or later.

Link: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-compatibility.html

And then you even attack me for agreeing with you

As I said, I don’t attack you, I point where I think you were wrong, if that’s an attack for you it’s your problem, and as I said you always feel attacked when someone disagrees with you.

And fact is the exe was under “GPL 2 or higher” until Blender 2.80. And with Blender 2.80 it changed to GPL 3. Unasked

Exactly, because there is no need to ask, because the GPLv2 OR HIGHER already covers the possibility of being changed to v3 without any trouble and asking, that’s where the “OR HIGHER” is important, if the license were “GPLv2” without the “Or Higher” then you could say something about it, but that was not the case.

Here is other part you may have missed:

We hope we will never need to make a GNU GPL version 4, but nothing is perfect and we can’t assume we have anticipated all the issues. By releasing your code under GNU GPL 3 or later, you permit your code to upgrade to GNU GPL version 4 if we ever need one.

Same link as before: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-compatibility.html

No, not the one who cries loudest is right. And not the one who gives up has lost. This is not how adults discuss. It should be about facts and arguments.

Just have a look at all the other threads where you play yuang against the rest of the CG world all the time to defend your hot loved Blender against all evil comments.
[…]
No matter how hard you play the guilty game with me here

You are totally right, not the one who cries loudest is right, that’s why I don’t say things like “you are attacking me” or like “you play the guilty game”, but rather I prefer to provide the information I have in which I base my conclusions, and those conclusions are the ones I expose about the license and that I think you are wrong, that’s not attacking you, that simply saying that I think you are wrong, nothing more nothing less.

Man you don’t understand the most basics of the license if you say something like this:

Oh, it MUST be under GPL3? How comes that it was under GPL2 or higher then before? Another license breach?

v2 is compatible in this situation, new code is being created under v3, hence when the old code is mixed with the new code everything is under v3 rules and if you distribute that binary you MUST distribute the binary AND the code under v3 rules, but you seem to not understand this, I won’t explain this to you again, please write to the FSF as I did in the past so they clarify things for you because you are not understanding the license.

Then you say this:

You definitely talk lots of bollocks for somebody who didn’t want to talk to me at all.

You decide to say “you talk lots of bollocks”, you decide to use “hard” language instead of just saying in a polite way “you are wrong”, and after that you say:

Yes you do, and repeat it again and again. And you don’t even notice it anymore since you are used to discuss that way. And not only with me. For you it’s war, and you are willing to kill for your truth.

Stop accusing and attacking me, then i stop to point with the finger at your trolling.

I have not complained about you attacking me as if it were a problem, do whatever you want, what you seem to not understand in this situation is that I don’t care about you and I don’t have reasons to attack you, what BTW is not the same of saying ” you are wrong”.

Be clear that I’m not “talking to you”, if you spread misinformation I’ll be answering and explaining why is bad misinformation, now if you do that on purpose (what could be an accusation if I say that) or you do it just because it’s your understanding (what could be just that, a misunderstanding of the license, and I think that’s what is happening), I have not entered into a evaluation of that before, I don’t acuse you of spreading misinformation in bad faith, but I’ll keep saying that you are wrong and if you keep spreading mis information I’ll keep saying that it’s misinformation 🙂

The fact is that in all this conversation all you’ve done is to complain about a theoretical attack from me to you and expose your point of view of the license, a point of view that I must say is wrong.

You say I’m trolling, but the fact is that your way of reacting is the one that trolls use, to use personal evaluations, hard language, and trying to position as a victim of another one, and of course don’t support his words with reasoning or actual proof in case it’s possible, and in this case is totally possible since the GPL is out there.

The fact is that I keep supporting what I say not just with my opinion but with actual data, links and quotes from the GPL website and explanations in good faith.

Keep spreading misinformation and I will keep clarifying it.

I don’t care if you think you are attacking me or not, and I don’t care if you think I attack you or not, as I said you have a long record here and other forums of reacting this way when someone does not agree with you, you feel attacked.

Yeah you don’t care this much that you can’t stop posting. A clear sign of how much you don’t care …

Or you don’t understand what I write or you don’t want to understand what I write, I don’t see other choice here, I’ll put it very simple:

1.- I don’t care about you and what you say about me, go ahead say whatever you want LOL

2.- I care about the misinformation you spread and as I said before I’ll keep answering to that misinformation, no matter if it’s said by you or by other.

I call it bollocks because it IS bollocks what you talk here. And you add even more bollocks with every posting. Maybe you should google bollocks first. This was the polite way. And while at it, do yourself a favour and google for GPL too. You have really massive gaps in your knowledge. It’s not my job to fill them though.

I gave you information directly from the GPL website and GPL texts, but you say that I have a massive gap, ok, give me the information, the links and the official texts that support your reasoning, otherwise it’s just your opinion. 🙂

And a wrong one IMHO.

And again, you attacked me for agreeing with you. And you still didn’t even notice it.

As I said before you always feel attacked when someone disagrees with you, you showed this behaviour in various places, not just here.

where even i said that it is not a big breach

There is no breach, this is the main misinformation you continue spreading, and I tried to explain this to you.

And again you accuse me all the things that you are guilty of, like trolls always do. And your texts are getting longer and longer and longer …

I tried once and again to give reasoned and supported facts, including official texts and links, about the GPL licensing, about why it’s not being breached and about the fact that you have a misunderstanding of the GPL license.

It’s a fact that the first doing the troll accusation was you at the same time you were doing the things you described, like wanting to look like a victim – (I’m being attacked) – and such things, I have not seen a single link, official text or reasoning from you, just your personal opinion and your words saying I’m attacking you because I think you are wrong ¿and you call me troll? ok 🙂

It’s also a fact that what you said and understand about the GPL is wrong, you can go over the license and the information I gave you and check it, you should not say that the Blender Institute is breaching or violating the license because it’s a false accusation.

A license violation/breach is equal to piracy, specially if it’s not solved up on a reasonable time after it has been detected / reported, if you say such a thing basically you are making an accusation of piracy to the Blender Institute.

If you want to support this go ahead and contact the Institute so they can explain you the situation, do it publicly please, in devtalk.blender.org , if you insist in continue spreading such misinformation I’ll continue to answer you.

Please go ahead and publish also here the answer the Institute gives you, so people here can have a clear idea if you were wrong or not.

BTW my texts area always long because I expose the reasoning behind my words, not just my opinion, not a surprise for anyone here 🙂

Yeah, but you quote it wrong and out of context. Without understanding anything. Just to produce some hot air to impress everybody else with your oh so great but at the same time simply not existent knowledge about GPL. That’s epic.

My knowledge come from the inquiries I did to the FSF and studying the license myself, that’s it, if you think I’m wrong, great, support that with data not with opinions.

And have you even understood that my initial posting was not about the GPL, but about breaching licenses?

Once again you seem to avoid reading the answers.

That’s why I said to you that if you say that the B.I. does not take the licensing seriously and if you say that they are changing it at will you are basically accusing them of violating the license, so you are accusing them of piracy.

Is that what you are doing?

And again no word about the manual.

And once more you seem to avoid reading the answers.

Check one of my first answers to you, I asked you for links and information about the manual licensing and about what you were saying, you gave me nothing, you can give me that information whenever you want.

Here is the exact phrase from my answer: can you give me the links where you see the license changes and those things?

Hey, this news page is not yours alone. Others have also the right to impress their feelings and share their knowledge.

Did I told you to shut-up?

Nope

What I told you is that if I think that you are wrong and if you insist in spread misinformation I’ll be here to answer, that’s it.

I told you, when somebody acts to me this way then i will point it out. Always. You picked the wrong one here this time.

fact: You keep going with “you are attacking me”+”you are a troll” and now menacing, ok… LOL

Quote: all the troll thingie

Whatever you like, as I said I don’t care about your opinion about me 🙂

Man Imtold you to give me proper information and links, even about the manual, yo do not, you still insist in “I’m being attacked” + “you are a troll” and you don’t realize that I never said that I’m your victim, on the contrary I said I don’t care and I’m not your victim, but as demonstrated over the posts there are two possible solutions:

1.- you have a reading understanding problem
2.- you are just trolling funnily enough XD

Blender CANNOT change the license of previous code without asking the developer involved, that developer must accept or it’s code must to be removed, that’s different of adding new code under v3, being compatible with old code on v2 and Apache and making that code to go under v3 rules, this is the most basics of GPL, I gave you info to understand it, you failed on it on purpose or not, not my problem.
You still have to clarify if you acuse the Blender Institute of violating the license or not.

People will decide who is the troll, I don’t care, but my conversation with you has finished.

Agreed, Eula is theory, lobying is reality

“What history?”

History