Today at 8PM Amsterdam time / 2PM EST, Jonathan will be showing the current state of the upcoming RetopoFlow 2.0. Join him for a live webcast.
You're blocking ads, which pay for BlenderNation. Read about other ways to support us.
About the Author
Bart Veldhuizen
I have a LONG history with Blender - I wrote some of the earliest Blender tutorials, worked for Not a Number and helped run the crowdfunding campaign that open sourced Blender (the first one on the internet!). I founded BlenderNation in 2006 and have been editing it every single day since then ;-) I also run the Blender Artists forum and I'm Head of Community at Sketchfab.
16 Comments
Thanks for sharing Bart! The recording will be online soon at the above link for anyone that missed it.
https://cgcookie.com/live_streams/retopology-with-retopoflow-2-0
@Jonathan Williamson You guys worth a huge compliment, making some useful tools and still releasing it under GPL in public... Unlike most of the market which tries to sell anything under their hand with little to no value with huge price tags and then license them as proprietary or royalty free (a huge mention to Andrew Price also for beginning that stupid trend of his and spreading it thorough the whole community by his influence and then hiring many known talents in the community to follow the path of his which I assume is based on "how to make loads of money in no time" podcasts he listens to) ...
*Of course it's just a personal opinion, he is not doing anything "illegal", it's just sad seeing how some can (ab)use their position for only their own good...
Where do you get the idea that RetopoFlow is free and under GPL?
It is https://github.com/CGCookie/retopoflow and it is licensed under GPL in the blender market.
https://github.com/CGCookie/retopoflow
Because every plugin in blender must be GPL, to not violate license that you accept by installing Blender! That's why GPL is called viral license and it's one of the worst license in my opinion that being invented. That's why in modern era we have so much new project under MIT, BSD and other similar licenses.
Where is the list of the source repos of every Blender plugin then, if they all have to be open sourced? I thought only plugins using the API had to be under GPL.
Well my second comment didn't come thorough... I noticed that they also do royalty free whenever they can, so I take my word back.
And about a source repo, GPL doesn't require sharing the source publicly (but it requires sharing the code to anyone who is using the software, and they are allowed to do whatever with it including sharing it publicly), so this one could be a plus for these guys.
So yeah I could only dream of Blender community getting to use open licenses for anything besides codes especially with people like Andrew around... (note that I don't mind people selling things, and free licenses by no means stop selling things, but these people just like the big movie and whatever industry which got into DRM shit think it would stop them from making a few more bucks, I honestly feel sorry for them)
I am not expert on this topic, but in my point of view...
Every plugin must use the api, to be functional.
If you want to sell your plugin then you have that choices of course!
You need to publish plugin part of your code as GPL. Then you can connect to this and from this part of your closed code using some connection method to localhost/services, etc, and this part of code (client part that connect to your plugin) can be closed, and you can sell it!
Next thing is content that you embedded to your plugin. If you want to incorporated textures into your plugin and earn money from selling them, then you should do some client->server code as I wrote above, or just create python plugin give it openly to the community. Then you can charge separately for your textures or other content that is NOT code. Sell this content as package that your plugin can import.
You as a content creator/author have a full control of your textures and other stuff that you created. You are the copyright owner.
@wyslij
Seriously what's with that mess, you can simply sell a free software under GPL as they do!
And please don't start the absurd idea which indicates not making your code closed is gonna take those "bucks" away from you.
They have made at least 126K $ out of a publicly available GPL code which is only an add-on, and everyone can modify, use, improve and share it. It's a simple win-win. And with your attitude towards free software Blender would just be yet another Maya which no one could actually afford to use unless they run a bank, and with far less features.
Anonymous it's not that simple. I'm talking only about nonsense of GPL and about abuse of GPL license in general. Of course you can redistribute GPL software and charge for this. But as a creator of this code you are bound to make your code publicly available. And I don't see in majority cases any information where that code is available for download and use for simply for review.
It was the only reason why I wrote above, so if you don't want to share your code you should crate some client->server software, so you can not violate GPL license, or sell your addon content separately. Other wise addons creators should just share their addons code, after all they accepts license.
By the way I think you misunderstood my attitude. In my opinion GPL is to restrictive license, I think full open license like BSD is fare better for both community and business too.
I see, well they don't have to share it publicly, unless you own the software and ask for the code and face a rejection, they are not violating the license AFAIK. Also the point of the restrictions in GPL is simply to keep the freedom of the software (it's not the best case everywhere tough, that's why we have LGPL) so people like Apple don't use the free code and keep the improvements locked in for themselves (what happens with LLVM, or Netflix building VP9 encoders and not sharing it). So with too much freedom it's only the users who should pay for it, and just more free stuff for big brothers to abuse.
Did this ever get added to Retopoflow? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uDU34OcUjtI
Hey AFWS, nope. They talk about it in the video. at present 2.0 is missing some of the tools from 1.x. They explain that the whole way that they deal with the geometry is totally different (and pretty radical if you ask me!) from how they used to do it. So, most of the tools have to be refactored into the new code base.
I have to say, this is a pretty impressive show of coding force. I recommend watching the video if you haven't yet.
Like @galenb said, we haven't added it yet. We still intend to, in some form or another, but right now we're focusing on the complete rewrite of 2.0.
I can't wait to test out ver 2.0 , when is that puppy getting launched?