Re: Blender status change

[Roger Dingledine <arma@mit.edu>]

> >We included Blender in 0.1.  It was 0$, they gave me authorization of
> >putting it in the distrib, it was very good.  But now it becomes
> >shareware with features enabled with a key.
> >
> >I don't feel very well about distributing crippleware.  We are not
> >supposed to be a channel for increasing sales of payware like a TV ad
> >can be.
> >
> >I plan on withdrawing Blender.   Anyone disagrees?
> 
>    I actually read some of the 80's business bible, "See You At The
> Top," by Zig Ziggler.  <OK, he knew my dad...>  Anyway, one of the
> things he says is that you never know what you can get if you don't ask.
>  I say shoot them an e-mail stating that we only include full,
> non-crippleware versions of any program.  Our license can be limited to
> that particular version current at the time of our release, <they can
> still make a buck on future upgrades> but it is complete as of the
> distribution release.  If they say no, pull it.  But, they just might
> say yes for the exposure.  We get a "value add" we can talk about on the
> web site, and they get talked about...
> 
> 			Lee
 
Alternative viewpoint: we don't want a 'value add' for our distribution;
we want to support completely free programs. If people start using Indy,
and they like and use blender, then when they want to get the latest
version of it, they'll find that they have to pay money for it.

The point of the free software community is to have free versions of
everything. So you aren't locked into a specific company if you want to
upgrade, or even fix things yourself and re-release the changes.

Not that I know what Blender's current license is, or even what Blender
does, but my first response would be to ask if there's a similar free
program that it's slightly viable. My second response is to ask if we
want to do that to our users. The only real solution is to 'shoot them
an e-mail' asking that they change their license back to free software.

--Roger