Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pixar Puts Out Free, Non-Commercial Spin Of RenderMan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pixar Puts Out Free, Non-Commercial Spin Of RenderMan

    Phoronix: Pixar Puts Out Free, Non-Commercial Spin Of RenderMan

    Pixar has made a free, non-commercial version of its RenderMan software available to the public...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...-Free-Released

  • #2
    It's it open source or just free to use? I understand free software is cool, but libre is even cooler if you're a software developer and if the software doesn't fulfill your needs yet. I'm thinking of "libre" here extending as far as Unreal Engine 4 does since Renderman is still a commercial product.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Styromaniac View Post
      It's it open source or just free to use? I understand free software is cool, but libre is even cooler if you're a software developer and if the software doesn't fulfill your needs yet. I'm thinking of "libre" here extending as far as Unreal Engine 4 does since Renderman is still a commercial product.
      When the article says "proprietary software" this means it's proprietary (not open source)

      Comment


      • #4
        I see no indication as a non-registered peruser of the website that it's libre software. :/

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by sehe View Post
          When the article says "proprietary software" this means it's proprietary (not open source)
          I've assumed there was a gray area for the term after Epic came up with their license for UE4. Maybe I should hit the dictionary.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Styromaniac View Post
            I've assumed there was a gray area for the term after Epic came up with their license for UE4. Maybe I should hit the dictionary.
            Well, 'proprietary' and 'commercial' are orthogonal concepts: You can sell open-source software (more often just support, though), you can give it for free, you can make proprietary software free to use (this seems to be the case here, it's often called 'freeware'), and then there is classical 'selling blobs'.

            There are examples for all 4 cases.

            Comment


            • #7
              The category says:

              Published on 24 March 2015 07:59 AM EDT
              Written by Michael Larabel in Free Software
              ?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Styromaniac View Post
                I've assumed there was a gray area for the term after Epic came up with their license for UE4. Maybe I should hit the dictionary.
                It is possible to open software sources BUT then put restrictive licensing terms. So basically, availability of source is one thing. And your freedom to use it, change it, distribute it and benefit from it is different thing.

                So, program with available source (hence "open" source) can still have restrictive, proprietary license which puts severe limits on your ability to use that source, change it, distribute it and benefit from it. Epic's engine is good example: you can have source, BUT there are significant limits on how you can use this thing and Epic is exclusive entity who is the only ones allowed to possess full control over things and everyone else are, ahem, losers and second class citizens compared to Epic. So Epic could order their minions what to do, etc and controls things exclusively. So its not a big deal you can have source: while you have some convenience added, you're still 100% dependent ("vendor lock") on Epic and their decisions.

                So "open"source program (library, engine, ...) can still be proprietary. And to reduce confusion, free, or to be exact, "libre" term sometimes used to make distinction more clear. When one speaks of libre software (often called "free" but it is less distinct term), it both assumes availability of source as inherent part of mandatory freedoms AND certain minimal set of freedoms (like ability to use, change and distribute program binary and sources) without which it does not looks like freedom (liberty) at all.

                TL;DR: open != libre. Read these damned licenses, Luke!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Calinou View Post
                  The category says:
                  "Written by Michael Larabel in Free Software"
                  ?
                  That's where we learn some people can consider "Free as free beer", not "Free as in Freedom". Somehow, Michael happens to be in first group . Rather unexpected and silly . Hopefully it explains why "libre" term appeared recently to make distinction more clear

                  So, if you read "libre", you can expect certain freedoms. If you read "free", double-check terms. If you read "open", triple check wouldn't hurt, because now even proprietary faggots do not mind "opening" something on fairly restrictive terms.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I presume this is of interest to Michael as a new benchmarking tool?

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X