top | item 30696330

(no title)

walrus | 4 years ago

It appears to use C3D as its CAD kernel, which is proprietary. You can't build it without a copy of C3D. I'm guessing the source will be available for inspection, but the binary will cost money.

discuss

order

nkallen|4 years ago

A full build from scratch would require the c3d headers, which I can’t provide.

What I am planning is to something like this: divide the app into two pieces, an npm wrapper around the kernel and the electron front end that uses the module.

You will need a license key to “activate” the node module. You would then use the electron app or the module directly if you’re a programmer. You will be able to build your own fork of the electron app, but not the npm module.

In effect you will be paying for a license key, not the binary

nkallen|4 years ago

I will say I’m constantly bewildered by which license to choose. I’m using copyleft to defend myself a bit. But weak copyleft because I’ve hate that the gpl prevents blender plug-ins from being closed source or linking against something closed source. Plasticity will allow plug-ins to do whatever they want, that’s the goal.

There is some possibility I will switch to MIT since philosophically I’m more in that camp

wakeupcall|4 years ago

So external contributors can only provide patches without being able to test themselves I suppose.

Is the c3d dev license cheap enough for determined contributors to join? As in, cheaper than a f360 maker license?

I do not mean this in any pejorative sense. As a dev/maker I kept an eye on c3d for a long time, since that seems the only advanced-enough and commercially affordable brep kernel around to get off the ground quickly.

However, there's no discussion the closed nature pretty much bars any sort of in-depth contributor.

At least, contributing to a project like this would be extremely off-putting for me, to the point that besides having the ability to look a bit deeper than usual, I question whether keeping the source open does much.