Page 61 of 74 FirstFirst ... 1151596061626371 ... LastLast
Results 901 to 915 of 1106

Thread: What is Happening with LW?

  1. #901
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    France
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by Marander View Post
    It has been mentioned several times before, it's not that simple.

    - The product code can contain proprietary and licensed libraries which can not be released as open source due to legal constraints
    - VizRT would need to review everything first before releasing it
    - Without proper documentation the code is not much of use
    - The code quality might not be great considering that unification or substantial UI or Modeler improvements were never achieved trough all those years
    - Without knowledge how the algorithms are implemented, it's very time consuming or even impossible to do anything useful with it - it's not some simple sample application, it's very specific custom code
    - Just being open source doesn't make the product better, there need to be developers that 1) understand the logic and code, 2) are willing to spend much time with it and 3) have those specific skills (render engine development etc)
    - A single person will not achieve much or anything at all, it needs a team of skilled developers to cover the various aspects of the application
    - The modified application would need to be tested
    - Only the original developers might know what all the internal dependencies are and what possibly breaks in changing something
    - There can be a lot of external dependencies / libraries in order to compile it
    - How many users would even care for a modified LW?
    - Why all the hassle when there is already a popular and reliable open source application where anybody can contribute
    Yeah got it, but remember blender was free and proprietary then later it was open source by a campaign to release it

  2. #902
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    France
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by MauricioPC View Post
    Yup. Same reason as to why Autodesk never open sourced Softimage. That and the fast that Softimage 2015 probably kicks Maya 2020 and Max 2020 ***.
    Autodesk is as Microsoft, never to go in open source but Newtek is different I think so it is possible

  3. #903
    Electron wrangler jwiede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    7,208
    Quote Originally Posted by 3dslider View Post
    Autodesk is as Microsoft, never to go in open source but Newtek is different I think so it is possible
    Care to cite any evidence to support your believe that "Newtek is different"? Different how?

    BTW, Microsoft's released millions of lines of valuable code under OSS licenses (see https://github.com/microsoft among many other sources).

    Newtek?
    Last edited by jwiede; 10-10-2020 at 02:47 PM.
    John W.
    LW2015.3UB/2019.1.5 on MacPro(12C/24T/10.13.6),64GB RAM, NV 980ti

  4. #904

    Microsoft is Ok, AutoDesk not so much, Adobe nope, NewTek, Ok, but lately not so sexy.
    LW vidz   DPont donate   LW Facebook   IKBooster   My vidz

  5. #905
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    France
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by jwiede View Post
    Care to cite any evidence to support your believe that "Newtek is different"? Different how?

    BTW, Microsoft's released millions of lines of valuable code under OSS licenses (see https://github.com/microsoft among many other sources).

    Newtek?
    Yeah I know but what about of his Windows 10 in open source (I hear they are inspired for Linux as well in Windows 10)? Because others OSS by Microsoft are minors but a lot of codes are not useful at all.

    You want to know why Newtek is different, simple because they not follow as other big corporate for subscription and I think Newtek is neutral.

  6. #906
    Electron wrangler jwiede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    7,208
    Not responding to further unfounded claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by 3dslider View Post
    You want to know why Newtek is different, simple because they not follow as other big corporate for subscription and I think Newtek is neutral.
    https://www.newtek.com/npa/
    John W.
    LW2015.3UB/2019.1.5 on MacPro(12C/24T/10.13.6),64GB RAM, NV 980ti

  7. #907
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    France
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by jwiede View Post
    Not responding to further unfounded claims.



    https://www.newtek.com/npa/
    Ok that's specific otherwise there's the store so more choice but this is other thing, I was talking for LW so not subscription.

    You recognize that windows 10 is not open source, in his github the majority is Javascript, Typescript and C# than C++.

  8. #908
    www.Digitawn.co.uk rustythe1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    england
    Posts
    1,430
    Quote Originally Posted by 3dslider View Post
    Autodesk is as Microsoft, never to go in open source but Newtek is different I think so it is possible
    actually most likely not, as far as i know they use code across/features across their other products so it would give people access to that as well, there would also be code linked to file formats that has be licensed, things like reading PSD, video codecs, the numerous plugins they purchased from Third parties, AE link, UE link,
    just look at what happened to adobe not too long ago when they were sued by dolby, its now actually illegal to use any adobe product that is not the current CC version (not that there has been a probably would never be any case brought around)
    Intel i9 7980xe, Asus Rampage Vi extreme, 2x NVIDIA GTX1070ti, 64GB DDR4 3200 corsair vengeance,
    http://digitawn.co.uk https://www.shapeways.com/shops/digi...ction=Cars&s=0

  9. #909
    Quote Originally Posted by MauricioPC View Post
    Yup. Same reason as to why Autodesk never open sourced Softimage. That and the fast that Softimage 2015 probably kicks Maya 2020 and Max 2020 ***.
    Certainly not the reason. No way would Autodesk ever open source a product that would compete against their paid applications. I'm sure they, more than anyone, would love to see Blender fade into nothingness.
    Tim Parsons

  10. #910
    If VizRT doesn't give a rodent's sphincter about supporting Lightwave, what about farming it out?

    I would hope that among the many people lamenting the loss of Lightwave, there are enough code jockeys to at least whack the outstanding bugs, if not add new features.

    VizRT remains the owner of record, bypassing any problems with the use of proprietary 3rd party code.

    Yes, we all have "real" lives. Yes, people who sign up would only be able to do this part-time. Yes, upgrades and fixes will take quite some time. <sarcasm>I, for one, would welcome not having to install upgrades every week or so </sarcasm>

    People who kick in for crowd funding get the fixes and upgrades for free. Everybody else pays, say, $295 for existing Lightwave owners, and $795 for newbies.

    I'm just blue-skyin' here, folks.

  11. #911
    Electron wrangler jwiede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    7,208
    Quote Originally Posted by paulk View Post
    'm just blue-skyin' here, folks.
    It's not bad, but who decides whether to allow a given check-in, and/or whether a fix is "just a fix" and not also malware or whatever? Or which of two competing changes is the "best"/right one to take? You'd need (at least) one dedicated code reviewer/tester, as well as some kind of moderation/oversight board. Without at least those, the code base breaks and descends into a malware-ridden mess, and VizRT can't let that happen if they're still responsible for distribution.

    VizRT refuses to dedicate a dev/engineer, any new plan cannot consume more resources than current. The need for review/oversight seems counter to that restriction.
    John W.
    LW2015.3UB/2019.1.5 on MacPro(12C/24T/10.13.6),64GB RAM, NV 980ti

  12. #912
    Quote Originally Posted by jwiede View Post
    It's not bad, but who decides whether to allow a given check-in, and/or whether a fix is "just a fix" and not also malware or whatever? Or which of two competing changes is the "best"/right one to take? You'd need (at least) one dedicated code reviewer/tester, as well as some kind of moderation/oversight board. Without at least those, the code base breaks and descends into a malware-ridden mess, and VizRT can't let that happen if they're still responsible for distribution.

    VizRT refuses to dedicate a dev/engineer, any new plan cannot consume more resources than current. The need for review/oversight seems counter to that restriction.
    All valid points.

    What you're bringing up is the need for a solid Project Management team, preferably one without any PHBs.

    This would, obviously, include coding Standards And Practices, to enhance maintainability and prevent "unique" coding styles. As for which version of a fix is "better",
    1. Does it conform to Standard And Practices?
    2. Does it work?
    3. Does it break anything else?
    4. Does it have any dependencies?

    Feel free to add your own criteria.

    This should be determined by a standard test suite. I don't know how amenable Lightwave is to automated testing, but that should be looked into.

    Then there's the Legion of Superh -- uh, Beta Testers.

    As for consuming more resources than are currently available, the whole point of this thread is that there ARE no current resources. Allegedly. (Apologies to Simon Whistler). WE must be the resources we need.

    Blue skies, smilin' at me,
    nothin' but blue skies, do I see . . .

    -- Wilie Nelson

  13. #913
    Electron wrangler jwiede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    7,208
    I am not a lawyer. The information provided in my posts do not, and are not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available in them are for general informational purposes only. Readers of my posts should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. No reader, user, or browser of this site should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information in my posts without first seeking legal advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by paulk View Post
    for consuming more resources than are currently available, the whole point of this thread is that there ARE no current resources. Allegedly. (Apologies to Simon Whistler). WE must be the resources we need.
    I get where you're coming from, and generally agree with your points, but there's a huge problem with the above: If VizRT are selling/distributing the code, they legally cannot accept internally-unvetted modification of the code base, regardless of how much external vetting occurs, because ultimately they're still liable for the code they sell/distribute. No EULA can fully exculpate them from that.

    That's commonly what dooms these kinds of efforts: People mean well, and they have great ideas, but there's always some implicit dependency on the owning company overlooking liability concerns, and that just isn't realistic.

    If we can find a solution that either transfers liability elsewhere, or addresses their internal vetting resource costs, that has a potential of success. Leaving them liable for others' changes won't work.

    If you're seriously interested in pursuing this, two potentially-viable directions would be:

    • Establish a non-profit OSS-type foundation, and through crowdsource investment explore assessment of LW asset and potential purchase from VizRT with goal to convert to OSS project.

    • Establish for-profit company, and through crowdsource or other investment, explore assessment of LW asset and potential purchase from VizRT to resume dev & sales.

    Both of these address the liability concern by transferring it to someone else (resultant foundation or company). I intentionally phrased them similarly, because I believe the short- and mid-term concerns of both efforts are basically the same, the main differences are in handling down the road once the LW asset has been assessed and transferred.

    Another approach, which I consider less viable, is using some sort of crowdsource investment to obtain time-limited source access from VizRT, as well as funding short-term development of fixes/improvements, and covering VizRT's internal vetting needed to address liability concerns.

    I view this approach as less viable, because though it potentially addresses the liability concern, the uncertainty around committing to development before assessment creates serious risk in ability to deliver quantifiable deliverables adequate to justify investment. This is a MUCH riskier approach, and yet still yields less potential RoI than the others approaches.

    (there, I didn't just knock stuff down, I offered alternatives)
    Last edited by jwiede; 10-12-2020 at 06:25 PM.
    John W.
    LW2015.3UB/2019.1.5 on MacPro(12C/24T/10.13.6),64GB RAM, NV 980ti

  14. #914
    Quote Originally Posted by jwiede View Post
    I get where you're coming from, and generally agree with your points, but there's a huge problem with the above: If VizRT are selling/distributing the code, they legally cannot accept internally-unvetted modification of the code base, regardless of how much external vetting occurs, because ultimately they're still liable for the code they sell/distribute. No EULA can fully exculpate them from that.

    That's commonly what dooms these kinds of efforts: People mean well, and they have great ideas, but there's always some implicit dependency on the owning company overlooking liability concerns, and that just isn't realistic.

    If we can find a solution that either transfers liability elsewhere, or addresses their internal vetting resource costs, that has a potential of success. Leaving them liable for others' changes won't work.
    Again, valid points.

    I would expect VizRT to perform their own internal testing. What that would be and how much of it would be up to them. In my IT career, I've done enough testing of vendor packages and home-grown code to know that the "official" testing procedure was okay, but when somebody told me "That'll never happen", I made sure to see what would happen if it did. Also, seeing "What would happen if I did this?".

    As for the EULA, I am not a lawyer, and have never read a EULA. But, it's my understanding that the EULA says:
    1. The software is sold as-is.
    2. There is no guarantee/promise/warranty, explicit or implied, that the software will do what you think it will do.
    3. By clicking "Accept" (and who doesn't?), you accept all risk for the use of the software.
    4. You actually bought a license to use the software on your machine. The software remains our property.

    If any lawyer out there would like to defog my rose-colored glasses regarding EULAs, feel free to weigh in.

  15. #915
    Electron wrangler jwiede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    7,208
    I am not a lawyer. The information provided in my posts do not, and are not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available in them are for general informational purposes only. Readers of my posts should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. No reader, user, or browser of this site should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information in my posts without first seeking legal advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by paulk View Post
    If any lawyer out there would like to defog my rose-colored glasses regarding EULAs, feel free to weigh in.
    Yes, it'd be great if an actual lawyer could provide some clarification.

    My layman understanding of it (again, see above) is that EULAs can set whatever terms they want. However numerous jurisdictions also have consumer protections statutes that intentionally disallow consumers from signing away certain rights, and thus even though a EULA may claim certain terms, they wouldn't constitute legally-enforceable terms in such jurisdictions. It gets even murkier when it comes to clauses exculpating liability for harm when it can be shown due to "reckless" action.

    A search on "unenforceable exculpatory clauses" might help, or might just make it more confusing -- and that's kind of the problem.
    Last edited by jwiede; 10-12-2020 at 06:25 PM.
    John W.
    LW2015.3UB/2019.1.5 on MacPro(12C/24T/10.13.6),64GB RAM, NV 980ti

Page 61 of 74 FirstFirst ... 1151596061626371 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •