Slashdot Mirror
Creative Commons Video Challenges Hollywood's Best
Supercharged_Z06 writes "A short film entitled Sintel was released by the Blender Foundation under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (YouTube link). It was created by an international team of artists working collaboratively using a free, open source piece of 3D rendering software called Blender. No Hollywood studio was involved in its making. Pretty remarkable what can be generated these days with open source software and some dedicated, creative talent. If a short film of this quality can be produced without Hollywood right now, imagine what will appear a few more years down the road."
Is this really that different from Elephants Dream?
You do realize that the point of the Open Movies isn't just to show off Blender's capabilities, but to actually improve it, right? Elefant Dreams, Big Buck Bunny and now now Sintel all resulted in a better Blender.
Did you actually read the parent? The point of Open Movies are to improve the fucking tool? The majority of Open Source are completely self centered. This isn't altruism. You just make yourselves feel good about giving something away, with the sole interest of making your own life better. That isn't charity.
To be charitable, you actually have to give something of value (yours) away. You're not doing something for someone else, you're doing it for yourselves and it happens to help others. That is not the same. You people devalue software by insisting it all should be free and open by fiat, instead of holding it up as something to be valued by others, whether you intend to give it away or not. It is impossible to criticize Free Software without getting a snarky "but it's free", or "you fix it".
Upon first hearing of Open Source, and Free Software, most people would think the concepts are driven by non-profit organizations, charities, etc. Amazingly, it isn't. I wonder why. People want VALUE, and the truth is, most people don't value Open Source as much as the "Open Source Community", so you all fix the price to $0, creating a divide by zero error in the value equation. Then you claim whatever you do in the sake of openness is valuable to everyone!!
I should have said this a long time ago. FUCK Open Source Software. Software should be of consistent quality, easy to use, and offer good value. $0 source code is exactly the kind of thing a bunch of amateur programmers would want, it doesn't make the world a better place.