Slashdot Mirror
Blender Going Shareware
Don't panic! ;-) Blender remains freely distributed and functional as it used to be. However, the famous disabled features and most new development will be unlocked for paying customers only: the Key holders. NaN guarantees bug fixes and feature refinements for keyless users equally to Key holders. The decision to sell software Keys to active Blender users is a necessary condition to guarantee development towards the 1.8 release of Blender, the "Complete Blender". The Complete Key will be sold for the humble price of Euro 95, approx. USD 100.
More about this news. - Windows version?
Don't panic 2! ;-) Porting to Windows went surprisingly smooth, so in april this version will be published as well. Blender for Windows won't be freeware... To be able to write files, Windows users will have to pay for Blender. Within short terms, there will be no 'complete' version for Windows.
- Manuals
The current printed manual is valid for the entire 1.x series, for all platforms and including the Complete Blender. As announced before, manual sales are satisfying, but not sufficient to finance continious Blender development. To please manual buyers, they get a Euro 10 discount at a Key purchase.
The Slashdot review caused a big leap in the manual sales. We are out of stock until april 2. Check out the Book Review.
Windows user's do not ever contribute anything towards a free open-source world. I personally can not think of one open-source application that has been coded in the windows world. Maybe not all windows user's are twits, but the vast majority are. They don't code, they don't develop code, and they don't give back to the community. Furthermore, most Windows user's do not even see unix user's. For instance, people use movie formats like vivio, and sorenson's avi format, without thinking about the fact that any user of a UNIX based operating system will never be able to use them. Furthermore, shareware policy's such as those used by blender are common in the windows world, and should come as no surprise. Billions of user's use products like winzip, and eudora, without ever paying for them ( But why should they expect better when they never take any steps toward creating their own software? ). User's of linux generally do not use shareware or propietary products. If they want something, they can code it themself, and therefore, they have high quality applications made to fulfil their exact needs. If blender were to propose the same shareware policy towards UNIX user's they could simply use a diffrent product, such as mind's eye. Windows user's however do not have the same option, because, despite their large user base, no one ever starts any projects to provide high quality applications for windows ( for free, and open-source ). Yet, for some reason, they feel it is unfair that they have to pay money for their software, when user's of UNIX don't. They are so lucky that people have put in as much effort as they have to port UNIX application's to windows. Because of their large number of user's it is tempting, every programmer wants to see their code being used, however, I have yet to see any windows user ever thank anyone for the work being done. Instead, they wonder why anyone would want to use linux, or any other form of FreeBSD, and think the developer's were stupid to make an application for UNIX in the first place.
I think it is bad to make the windows version commercial only.
This is something MySQL does, and it is annoying. It seems to me it is usually done for three bad reasons.
1. Windows = corporate = they can afford it.
Well, that's not true, since far more home enthusiasts with an interest in 3D graphics use windows than use any other OS.
2. To cover the cost of porting to windows.
That is only justifiable to an extent. If you need to cover your porting costs by charging, why don't you cover your other costs by charging?
3. To discriminate against Windows users.
Well, its up to the author, of course, but pretty silly as far as I can see. As if Linux users are some kind of elite that are worthy of your program, while other OS's are used by twits who should just be charged to support the core development. If you view of users is that biased, it doesn't say much about you as an author.
4. I've got to make _some_ money off this
Sure. So charge for it, or charge for support, or charge for something, but don't do it on an OS basis.
I don't see where distributing binary only windows ports of what is otherwise open (in a loose sense) gets us. It just re-inforces the (completely unecessary and wrong) view that open source projects are *nix only by design, technology, and intent.
-----
3. To discriminate against Windows users.
Well, its up to the author, of course, but pretty silly as far as I can see. As if Linux users are some kind of elite that are worthy of your program, while other OS's are used by twits who should just be charged to support the core development. If you view of users is that biased, it doesn't say much about you as an author.
True -- but there's a very closely related reason which seems valid to me: When you write good software for a given platform, that tends to increase the viability of that platform. When you write something cool for a proprietary OS (especially free beer), you're increasing the value of that OS. This is good for the user, but it's good for the vendor as well. Okay, that's cool. The benefit to the vendor is really incidental. But it seems to me that if I'm helping somebody else make a buck, I may as well make a buck too. It's an uneven trade otherwise. By contrast, if I write something cool for Lignux, I'm just making yet another contribution. How could anybody mind giving stuff to Linus? He's given us stuff already. There's a big difference between my relationship with Linus (or Stallman, or the XFree86 people) and my relationship with proprietary vendors.
A practical example: Cygnus made windows usable. They've exposed some new people to the joys of a good command line interface, and they've passed out a hell of a lot of free (beer) compilers, but they also made it a lot easier and more pleasant to keep on paying a proprietary vendor.
I'm not sure this argument is justified, but I think it's worth some thought anyway.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Fully functional, yet has disabled features? This writer has a future in government work! Fully functional means just that; all the functions work. I think the right phrase would be "Basic functionality enabled"
"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin,