Yes! Even I don't know. It's fairly safe to say that Sculptris won't spiral into a huge complex beast of an application though. There are a bunch of those around already. It wouldn't be sensible. My hope is that most people will be thrilled by version 1.0 and able to use it for a lot of great things without constantly bumping into fundamental limitations and flaws.
There's always more that can be added, but it's important to look at the baseline capability and see what you can do with that. Most of the productivity tools I use are versions from 10 years ago or more. They're good enough that I can do what I need in them, and I proceed to do those things rather than looking for new tools that might have more/different stuff in them. If time spent training on new features becomes comparable to time spent doing real work with tools that you're confident in using, well... that's not ideal.
Anyway, I was bored with Sculptris two months ago, but I kept going. Now it has turned around and I'm very excited, but I don't have a lot of significant stuff left on my list. A few days from now I should have a good version ready, and then I'll probably do a very short patch run a month later, fixing some problems that will no doubt come up and nag people. It's developing towards a point of completion, and won't endlessly evolve beyond that. It would make more sense to do a complete sequel from scratch if more/different things were desired, but that will almost certainly not happen by my hands.
Yeah I suppose I would also say that it would be magnanimous to allow a fork if you decide not to develop it anymore. it's already an outstanding program, and I only have the alpha. However, people may have uses for it that you haven't thought of -speciality applications that might need tweaking, that might provide a lot of value, but that might only be possible if the code is available.
That said, either way I think the community appreciates your work a great deal.
I'd love to see this open sourced, but that's because it's a great philosophy...
Dr Petter, it could mean that you maintain control (beyond copyright)... just look at Ton Roosendal, It's clear he's the boss with blender...
it could alos mean that it's the best route for you financially.... (name a bounty and rely on community pledges.... when the pledges meet a certain point you release the source code under GPL.... ) it could be a more reliable way to secure funds than relying on donations alone...
I hope that your "donations" scheme is un-obtrusive and simple for you to implement.... perhaps a "donate now" splash screen everytime you run until you enter a "register code"....
rather than some over complicated feature lockout scheme...
Post by joshdreamland on May 22, 2010 21:27:07 GMT 1
Perhaps my opinion doesn't count, but I will give my two cents nonetheless.
I run an open source project myself, being the author of more than 90% of the code. I run an SVN to share the source, and only one other person has commit privileges to that repository. That person happens to be a Java programmer working on an interface end for my otherwise C++ project, which means that no features really get in with my consent.
I would recommend that if the reason you are holding back is because you are afraid the project will lose focus, that you do as I have done and be of very few people with commit privileges to the SVN.
Perhaps someone will write a plugin system so the project only gets distracted when you have too many plugins installed. Likely someone will write you a Linux port (depending on how many calls you make to the graphics system you have used, that someone may even be me).
Anyway, I've not yet tried your project for myself because, again, I'm on Linux, but from your demonstration videos I can see it has turned out very nicely.
Also, you may receive more support--talking financially--from the Open Source community that way. They actually don't care whether you charge for it or not if it's open source; they like the freedom that comes with it being open.
If you have other fears about your work being made off with, I recommend GPL3. That's what I use. If you are afraid you won't make money being open source, I can't console you; I don't accept donations myself.
Anyway, best of luck with your endeavors and thanks for your consideration. It seems you have an awesome project going.
you can do what google did with chromium and chrome. Release the source code and let people play with it, document it and debug it, but keep that as a separate project. Then Just take whatever code/ideas you believe are good and consistent with your design. That way everybody wins.
Blender devs will implement your ides in the sculpt module with or without your help. If you release your code, and give them an ok, it is going to be your code and your name on it. That would also look good on your portfolio as a developer. You wouldnt have to work on blender at all, other enthusiasts will do all the porting for you, all the debugging and documentation. But in the end, you will have the time to focus on whats really interesting- the design and cool new features. This will dramatically cut man hours of work.
Also having something open sourced does not mean that you arent going to be able to get paid for it in the future.On the contrary, donations will start pouring in. You can still sell a work license to studios and people earning something by using the tool, once its mature .
it doesnt have to be gnu gpl, you can use bsd license or something suited to your needs. Just dont let sculpris become abandonware. If you decide to open source it, it will have a life of its own. You might see it ported to exciting new portable devices (the ARM tablets with preinstalled android os or other linux distros for instance)
When the world as we know it has collapsed and the good of mankind that survived wakes up to a reasonable, enjoyable system outside of the currently appearant benefit of greed, protectivness and ignorance, everything will be open source and no party will ruthlessly take advantage of great ideas and use their financial advantage to claim some form of exclusivity or propriatary right, preventing those ideas from growing more rapidly and originally.
Until then, some leaps of innovation and faithful implementation should be kept to their own, offering inspiration, but don't inspire intellectual deactivation due to an absorbtion of a larger, not understood sections of code.
I know, most of you don't really think in terms of selflessness, but try to argue that logic would suggest the free distribution of all intellectual properties in the name of universal availability and that your notion would reflect a selfless thought. In reality you just so happen to willfully ignore the potential consequences, some of which you are aware of, others you simply can't imagine so easily or readily.
Trust me, though, I'm with you, I want all this, too. I want us to all work together, to share our revelations and discoveries, to celebrate a lightning fast evolution of our concepts to create the best possible tools for the most possible artistic freedom and access. In the meantime, though, we have to defend those snippits of brilliance from being woven into redundant complications that might at the end burry the progress they so deeply deserve.
Relax, enjoy, create and use your very own ingenuity to put together the best you can with what you get already. And, please, stop creating such uncomfortable pressure for Tomas! He's unarguably given without any demands, offered his full focus and dedication to something he passionately carved out of nothing and gave it to you. This thread exists now and it's all good. Just leave it at that, would ya'. I'm sure the time will come where this could turn into a topic again and then you can fire away with all your great ideas on how to suck the last drop of moisture out of his spine...hmm...maybe that was a bit much, let me rephrase that... on how to allow his genius to push the glory of all applications out there that could benefit from it, particularely blender.
Sorry if I'm a bit harsh, but I really want to ask you to focus on using sculptris for a while and not drilling holes into the poor guy. It's all good.
One example of an open source project which never became design by committee or suffered from lack of focus would be Linux. It's the biggest open source project, and guess how many people can commit changes? One. After all these years, with all the many contributors, still in the end it's Linus Torvalds who decides what gets in and what stays out. Even with big companies like IBM working on the Linux kernel, spending thousands of dollars to develop the changes that they want in there, if Linus says no, then the changes don't get in. And it does happen that Linus declines changes. Since it's open source, the developers could then go ahead and release their own version of Linux, but after all these years no other version has managed to assert itself. That's because Linus is pretty good in making the decisions about what comes in and what stays out. What will usually happen with features that were declined is, that the developers spend more time on it, improve the features in the areas that Linus complained about, and then a couple of months later they will submit their changes again. Often they get their changes in after a while. But it has happened that features never got in.
So yeah, as others have said before: You can go open source and retain complete control over everything. The worst thing that could happen is, that somebody else improves your program independently of you and his version gets more popular than yours. But even then he would still have to give you credit for writing the original program. And depending on which license you choose you could even force him to make his changes open source, too.