[nkallen]

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]

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

[jcelerier]

> 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

So you're ok with using copyleft to defend yourself, but not ok with others to use copyleft to defend themselves ? This is bewildering

[ushakov]

[edit: misunderstanding]

[wakeupcall]

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.

[nkallen]

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

My intention is that if you buy a license for plasticity, you can then build locally and test locally. You can contribute back or not depending on your interest.

Think of it like this. There will be a typescript/javascript wrapper around a limited version of the c3d kernel. this is the plasticity api. You will call plasticity.Enable(license_key) at the top of your program and you will be good to go. You buy a license key from me.

Although I do hope people will contribute the plasticity's development, my main goal with it being open source is that people will write plugins that they can then give away or sell themselves.

I have used commercial software that I pay for -- like Fusion 360 and MoI3d -- where I ran into bugs that I could have fixed for myself if only I had the code. I'm still happy to pay for them. Instead I literally waited 2 years for Fusion to fix a bug I cared about.