[Bf-committers] Blender Addons Policy

Lechu Sokolowski lechu.sokolowski at gmail.com
Tue Jun 22 15:17:10 CEST 2021 

Hello Ton,

>The discussion is going astray; please don't take it personally but look at this as a way to create an equal playfield for everyone.

I'm not taking it personally at all but I really don't understand why I'm not able to get answers to my questions. With all respect to 3dmodelhaven but they have 38 models listed for the last 2 or 3 years and they're constantly referenced to me for reasons I don't understand.

Is it possible to receive any answers to the following questions? You asked me to post them here for the open discussion and the benefit of others.

1. What will be the rules/guidelines/requirements for getting an independent addon included in the official Blender build, starting from version 3.0?

2. If the addons "linking to commercial services" won't be included anymore, does this mean that the listed addons: Archipack, Blendkit, Bsurfaces, Autodesk exporters/importers, will be discontinued?

3. Since Blender is a community-supported and financed project, shouldn't there be clear rules and guidelines on how external, commercially driven companies can be included in that process?

4. If "Add-ons linking to commercial web services or add-ons offering a bridge to closed (non-GPL) software, are not contributing to Blender's core mission" why and under which guidelines are the BlenderKit addon (linking directly to a commercial web service) included in Blender?

Best wishes,

--
Lech Sokolowski
chocofur.com

On June 22, 2021 at 2:57 PM, Ton Roosendaal via Bf-committers (bf-committers at blender.org) wrote:
Hi Lechu,

Sorry, I mix up addons. To my knowledge your addon was not in the
'commercial addon' category then. Blenderkit and Sketchab are the only
two currently.

The discussion is going astray; please don't take it personal but look
at this as a way to create an equal playfield for everyone.

Sketchfab, for example, offers a half million CC0 models. And there's
3dmodelhaven, they are seriously creating a huge CC0 library as well. I
bet there are more.

I think we're better off by only defaulting to services that are part of
blender.org. On blender.org we do not want to implement our own models
repository, so we're not competing or creating unfair advantages for
independent websites. (*)

Then there's the safety and security issue for Blender. If people
download the software and enable add-ons, they should have the same
quality backup as for any Blender feature.

-Ton-

(*) I would only consider to host a massive CC0 asset collection on
blender.org if such a public service is being endangered, for example
because of something evil like a Content ID for 3d  models.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ton Roosendaal - ton at blender.org - www.blender.org
Chairman Blender Foundation, CEO Blender Institute / Studio
Buikslotermeerplein 161, 1025 ET Amsterdam, the Netherlands


On 22/06/2021 14:14, Lechu Sokolowski wrote:
Hello Ton,

/*>We only had your add-on and Sketchfab's add-on listed as "addon
linking to commercial services".*/
Each of the addons I've listed has a free and paid version that
includes commercial services (either paid features or extra paid
assets). My only question on that matter was how to get the Chocofur
Model Manager addon into the official Blender build. Our addon is and
always was free. We've offered over 300 CC0 assets for the Blender
community together with our addon. We do have paid assets to be used
with the addon, but the addon can be also used completely standalone
with none of the Chocofur 3D models.

/*>Add-ons linking to commercial web services or add-ons offering a
bridge to closed (non-GPL) software, are not contributing to our core
mission and therefore will not be offered on blender.org.*/
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the BlenderKit addon literally
linking to commercial web services directly from Blender? I have
nothing against BlenderKit creators nor the addon itself, but I don't
understand why it's included in Blender if that's the current policy?

/*>The bottom line for an add-on being distributed by Blender or via
blender.org is that it should add to Blender's mission - to contribute
to the user's freedom to have a free/open-source creation environment.*/
If that is the bottom line, I believe our addon perfectly matches
Blender's mission. It is (and always has been) free, it includes over
300 CC0 blender-only assets that are included in Blender Cloud as
well. We have a proven track record of over 30.000 people using or at
least trying the addon.

/*>We have been lax on these practices in the past, flexibility is
suitable when you work with people and communities.*/
Since Blender is a community-supported and financed project, shouldn't
there be clear rules and guidelines on how external, commercially
driven companies can be included in that process? The mentioned lax
practices from the past leave too much space for interpretation that
some companies may be favored over others.

There are two general matters I'm not able to find answered anywhere:

1. What will be the rules/guidelines/requirements for getting an
independent addon included in the official Blender build, starting
from version 3.0.
2. If the addons "linking to commercial services" won't be included
anymore, does this mean that the listed addons: Archipack, Blendkit,
Bsurfaces, Autodesk exporters/importers, will be discontinued?

Best wishes,

--
Lech Sokolowski
*chocofur*.com

On June 22, 2021 at 11:27 AM, Ton Roosendaal via Bf-committers
(bf-committers at blender.org <mailto:bf-committers at blender.org>) wrote:
Hi Lechu,

1. Does this mean that Blender 3.0 and all the future versions won't
include any commercial addons such as Archipack, Blendkit,
Bsurfaces, etc?
We only had your add-on and Sketchfab's add-on listed as "addon linkingto commercial services".

The bottom line for an add-on being distributed by Blender or via
blender.org is that it should add to Blender's mission - to contribute
to the user's freedom to have a free/open source creation environment.
Each add-on will be reviewed equally to be of user benefit and to be GPL
compatible.

Add-ons linking to commercial webservices or add-ons offering a bridge
to closed (non GPL) software, are not contributing to our core mission
and therefore will not be offered on blender.org.

2. Will there be any new guidelines to the Community Addons linking
directly to the creator's private sites and portfolios? Examples are
Oscurant Tools, Amaranth, etc? Or do you need to be signed up for a
Diamond Sponsor level just like with the commercial addons?
I am not aware of this. No bundled add-on was allowed to use theiradd-on as advertisement or offer direct linking to websites outside of
blender.org. The only possible option is a small credit. Documentation
should be on blender.org. If in the course of the past years these
guidelines have been slipping away, I will make sure it gets reconfirmed
and applied.

3. Does this mean there won't be Community Addons linking directly
to commercial applications like Nuke, Autodesk software, Unreal
Engine, etc?
Not on blender.org.For independent websites (such as BlenderMarket) I will have to find a
way to help them to more clearly communicate the Free Software
guidelines for offering addons or bundling Blender with products there.

We have been lax on these practices in the past, flexibility is suitable
when you work with people and communities. However, reality changes.
Nowadays we talk to businesses making 100s of thousands of dollars
selling Blender addons or forks. It's only fair to remind them that the
fair-play rules for Blender also apply to them.

Regards,

-Ton-

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ton Roosendaal - ton at blender.org <mailto:ton at blender.org> -
www.blender.org <http://www.blender.org>
Chairman Blender Foundation, CEO Blender Institute / Studio
Buikslotermeerplein 161, 1025 ET Amsterdam, the Netherlands


On 18/06/2021 13:14, Lechu Sokolowski via Bf-committers wrote:
Hi all,

I was informed that "When it comes to bundling add-ons with Blender,
the policy is changing for the upcoming release."

I was asked to ask the following questions here:
1. Does this mean that Blender 3.0 and all the future versions won't
include any commercial addons such as Archipack, Blendkit,
Bsurfaces, etc?
2. Will there be any new guidelines to the Community Addons linking
directly to the creator's private sites and portfolios? Examples are
Oscurant Tools, Amaranth, etc? Or do you need to be signed up for a
Diamond Sponsor level just like with the commercial addons?
3. Does this mean there won't be Community Addons linking directly
to commercial applications like Nuke, Autodesk software, Unreal
Engine, etc?

--
Lech Sokolowski
chocofur.com
_______________________________________________
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers at blender.org <mailto:Bf-committers at blender.org>
List details, subscription details or unsubscribe:
https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
<https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers>
_______________________________________________Bf-committers mailing listBf-committers at blender.org <mailto:Bf-committers at blender.org>
List details, subscription details or unsubscribe:
https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
<https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers>

_______________________________________________Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers at blender.org
List details, subscription details or unsubscribe:
https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list