Why is Corona Blender exporter developed by community, not by us

Corona Common Corona Common :: Porting and API
1

Since now there is model which may work (community developed exporter + corona standalone), I updated the title - see the discussion in this thread for details

tl;dr: The “Free” licence of Blender forbids me to make top-quality Corona plugin for it. There will not be any Corona for Blender for a long time.

**Right now, I am deciding which application to implement Corona into next. The implementation will start right now**, since there is a guy who will do it as a thesis assignment. We went over the software and decided to do Blender, since we thought it is "free", "open", etc., so it should be simple to integrate into.

We were wrong.

Because entire Blender is covered by GPL licence, it is forbidden to link anything closed-source to it (not just commercial as in “you pay for it”, but anything closed-source, which includes “it is free to use, but I won’t give you my source code”). Making Corona opensource software (OSS) is out of question for me, I need to make it commercial to be able to fund its future development.

We thought there were some loopholes, but it turns out the “Free” Software Foundation thought about them too and explicitly forbidden them. So, to make a commercial plugin for blender, one has to either do the “exporter + standalone” combo, which I want to stay away from, because it is slow and clumsy, or do even more ridiculous workarounds, which will be as slow and clumsy as exporter version (This is what V-ray is doing). Basically, the plugin for the 3D application would have to be split into two, one OSS and other closed-source, and the two would have to communicate via sockets/files/pipes (which is slow). The sole reason for the split is the licencing issue.

So, Blender has unusable licence. That is fine, any software developer is entitled to the choice of licence. If somebody wants to make a 3D studio legally usable only while not wearing underwear, he should be able to do it. What makes me angry is the whole FREE software ideology/advertisement. FSF goes on and on about “protecting users freedom”. Their interpretation is:

  • being able to choose from free plugins: freedom
  • being able to choose from the same free plugins, plus also commercial plugins: less freedom.
  • Forbidding good Corona renderer integration for Blender is freedom. Allowing it would make Blender less free.

I am not saying the OSS concept is wrong. There are other, much better and really free licences, like MIT/Apache/… If Blender would use any of them, we would start Corona for Blender right now. Too bad it uses the GPL bullshit. I feel bad for Blender users, because they will never have any fully-integrated commercial renderer plugin :/.

2

… that really shocks me O_o. I like blender (even if I’m not able to use it) but THIS makes it impossible for me to see it as a real alternative or even an option for my Stuff.

crap.

3

what a pity

This is the point where my path get different way than corona.

Im training my sefl to migrating to blender… and i will do it in a couple of years no more… (is dificult wiht work)

Blender is growing and growing, and the people ho uses it too.

Maybe the industry monsters will be that, monsters, and if corona want to get there this is the right choise… i will walk the other.

Anyway i have still time to enjoy it.

4

I dont want for Corona to be neither a copyright nazi monster (typical EULA), nor copyleft nazi monster (GPL). The problem is that the copyright licences actually allow me free development, but copyleft gpl don’t.

5

Wow, the GPL license is really screwing us over big time. It’s a known problem though and Blender Foundation would be more than willing to change it to a better one but unfortunately that would require them to hunt down and get permission from every single person that has ever contributed code to Blender, which is frankly impossible.

It would be absolutely fantastic if there was some sort of loophole that allowed Blender to switch from GPL but it seems like that’ll only be a dream. So for now at least, this is directed at the GPL license.

tumblrinlinemjiy7lCSjq1qz4rgp540.gif

6

Nothing better than a licence that screws over the original developers, users, and plugin developers. All while Richard Stallman is sitting in the back, laughing, and eating something from his foot :smiley:

7

Yeah some people got the whole “freedom” concept all wrong… Ubuntu users bitch about the fact that you can run commercial paid software in it although the OS is and always stays free. So some guys actually think that OS sucks cause they have a choice for more products to run in it.

So even though it’s sad I wouldn’t be surprised if some blender users would actually complain that you can run corona inside it (because corona isn’t open source…)

8

There are actually such users :smiley:

It’s not a limit of the GPL, but a clear limit of commercial software vendors who choose to lock up stuff. They want to play the “we keep everything ourselves” game, and then blame others who choose to be open?

The good side of GPL - and how it worked for Blender very well - is that it requires to stay entirely “free”. That’s all.
Once you start polluting that with commercial components, it would end up in no time in a cripple product where users have to pay for every cool and useful module.

The risk though is what Ton outlined, people start making powerful modules for Blender that you might have to spend perhaps upwards of 100 USD or Euros to get access to

9

Hm, I’m a little confused. I wonder how to OTOY is getting around the GPL restrictions then? They’ve been developing (err, “were” developing?) an integrated plugin for Blender for Octane. I haven’t heard any updates on it in a while, so it may have fallen through the cracks, I have no idea. But they didn’t seem to have any problems with licensing, I wonder why?

At any rate, I’d be interested in collaborating on an open-source exporter, even if it’s not an integrated plugin. Exporting to Corona and rendering externally is better than not being able to use it at all! :smiley:

10

It is possible to make commercial plugin for GPL software, I am not saying it is not, its just the speed and quality will be worse and implementation will be much more complicated

11

I think the GPL has one thing servers it’s purpose, that it forces heavy integrated parts must be open source.
In doing so it also make sure who ever puts in efforts first can also benefit(expand knowledge) from the updated version with new stuff building into it constantly.
For doing commercial stuff on top of it, sure, many are willing to bite the bullet to export first and then render.
Or, if say corona’s python binding or API is flexible enough, people will “donate” 3rd party experimental stuff.
Which means, user either have to compile themselves, or with some python tweaking. It will not come with blender and merge into the trunk.

I think for Corona, even if the goal is not to support blender, a solid python binding will help you propagate to many authoring softwares in a long run.
I don’t think many could run their business like Blender Foundation, where it makes people want to support Blender on the side to have a giant PITA.
For near future, if Blender would ever become the “go-to” 3d authoring platform, it would need to re-structure and make a clean cut in both library and architecture.
So that there will be a LGPL side of blender that let you do the integration without worrying about other side that do need GPL libraries.
How? I don’t know, they must figure it out, or people would have stuck with doing things in grey area, or do blender in whole or none.

12

And, why is Octane Render for Blender (commercial product) released today if Blender is covered by GPL licence? ?? O_O

13

as I’ve said:

14

You made me sad. Today I find out about Corona Rendere. I found it interesting and it seems to be good alternative for Vray. That sad I won’t be able to use it with blender. It is possible to make at least unofficial exporter by me?

Even though I can use 3Ds max I just don’t want. I don’t know why, but Blender is more userfrendly than Max (i’m using Max in work and sometimes it pissing me off. :smiley: Blender isn’t perfect, but it’s a Great and Powerful (as Trixie) software.) I don’t use Blender for commerical projects - Blender isn’t ready for this yet, but its a nice soft for a hobbyists.

I can’t stand that the greatest virtue of Blender is it’s the biggest flaw.
Good luck and Gz. Corona render is just fabulous. Keep up the good work :smiley:

16

there are about 5 people that started an exporter at some point in the past :wink:

17

kinda relevant :smiley:

wtfpl-strip.jpg
wtfpl-strip.jpg1200×1500 297 KB

18

Indeed, and Indigo, and Thea, and Vray. It’s impossible to get commercial-quality stuff into Blender, huh?

19

Get the facts straight.
Blender for Octane is GPL… Octane Stand Alone is commercial product
Blender for VRay is GPL… VRay Stand Alone is commercial product.
Blender is GPL… Indigo, Thea, PRMan, Maxwell… are supported via exporters (python code, GPL). As Corona is!

20

V-Ray for Blender does not give you access to RT, because of the GPL license. So you get a watered down version of VRay plugin compared to the other software.
Octane plugin is open source, that’s why you get it working, but Octane Standalone, which is of course independent from your software, is not. That’s why you get the plugin working (by the way, it doesn’t work if you don’t have the standalone).

I am pretty sure that the others, Indigo and Thea, have similar properties (either the plugin is open source, or something combined like Octane).

So there you have it.

Blender GPL license is your handbrake here.

21

Ok i’m gonna buy/subscribe windows 10, and 3dsmax 2017 for all my ten machines, or perhaps exchanging them for macs, and I’ll buy corona after if I have something left. Thank you!