Blender apps for game development, the good and bad

[Diconica]

So I was looking at what can be done with blender apps and there are some good things to it and well some not so good things.

Blender apps is a way you can modify blender to work as a different application. You can use the various tools and features built into it to create a different software.
With apps you can modify the appearance allowing it to look like an different program all together.
A few examples of software that could be made with it.
A visual novel using images.
A 3D visual novel system which you could use 3D models rather than rendered images.
An image viewer and more.

The biggest problem with blender is it is distributed under GPL 2.0 so your IP protection is compromised.

Another good factor is it is in python.
They have basically every tool you can imagine needing in it for that development.

Of course you could also make use of the blender game engine as an alternative.

You must be registered to see the links

Here is were you stop reading if you don't care about the issue with the GPL2.0 license

GNU claims you could freely distribute any program that made use of the program because they assume all libraries are made to work with it if it so happens to do so.
That's complete horse shit. Given python is used for blenders app meaning any proprietary python library would still work with it.
Also the images would still hold copy right if you made a visual novel.

What GNU is saying under the

You must be registered to see the links

is this.
There are 4 parties meaning different people or groups of people.

Party A is the blender foundation.

Party B is some guy who has a library that works with multiple game engines that are proprietary.

Assume party C is morons they understand code but not a software license.
They are making a new program. They use the blender app system and Party B's library which isn't free to distribute it's proprietary.

Party D is the buy / receiver of the new software.
He buys the software. But because party C used a GPL 2.0 software he thinks he can freely distribute it. After all that's what it says on the GPL 2.0 license.

Party Assholes being GNU is the cause of all this shit because they made an assumption that any software library that can be interfaced to a GPL2.0 software must have been made for it.
They didn't take in account languages like python and other scripting languages aren't as easily restricted. That said even C and C++ libraries written for one game engine can be made to work on another by writing a wrapper or hooks for them. Sure it takes a little more work but it is still possible. I've seen it done. So their assumption is pure horse shit.

They also don't take into the issue of incompetence such as we seen from the 3D visual novel maker which tried to redistribute the unity game engine.

One idiots stupidity doesn't take away mine or anyone else's right to make a profit nor does GNU's stupidity for not knowing what is and isn't possible with software. I don't actually believe they don't know it is possible I think they just don't give a shit. Granted this is all being discussed on a software piracy forum so I get the irony.

They could have struct a balance that would make sense such as saying it is legal to distribute the parts of the software that is open source the parts that are not are covered under their perspective licensing. The way they currently have it written is misleading as hell. Frankly, if Party B decides to go to court they can take both GNU and party C and D to court and all 3 will end up being held liable. GNU created the situation by writing a misleading license and then further increased it with conflicting and misleading statements on their site trying to explain the shit they wrote. If you have to explain a legal document outside of itself that's a bad sign you fucked up writing it.

 

[shabadu]

Yes, licensing and IP protection laws are nebulous, hard to navigate, and can be confusing at the best of times for, say, a hobbyist game dev. There is an entire specialization in this field for lawyers for a reason.

That said, I'm a little confused as to what your issue is with the GPL. Not trying to be an ass here, but...

One idiots stupidity doesn't take away mine or anyone else's right to make a profit nor does GNU's stupidity for not knowing what is and isn't possible with software. I don't actually believe they don't know it is possible I think they just don't give a shit.

Are you saying that you don't like how the GPL allows for people to distribute software that uses that particular license? You mention this in the context of making a game, so do you want to create an entire game using Blender/other GPL program as the base but don't want to release it for free? What exactly is the problem?

GNU claims you could freely distribute any program that made use of the program because they assume all libraries are made to work with it if it so happens to do so.

Party Assholes being GNU is the cause of all this shit because they made an assumption that any software library that can be interfaced to a GPL2.0 software must have been made for it.
They didn't take in account languages like python and other scripting languages aren't as easily restricted. That said even C and C++ libraries written for one game engine can be made to work on another by writing a wrapper or hooks for them. Sure it takes a little more work but it is still possible. I've seen it done. So their assumption is pure horse shit.

I have no idea where this is coming from. You can't freely distribute software with a more restrictive license just because you used it in a GPL-based program, and there is nothing that states otherwise. In fact, if you do use something with a GPL-incompatible license you have to modify the text of the GPL such that it specifies the other license as well.

You must be registered to see the links

Using different programming languages doesn't change this. Modifying other libraries or using wrappers for compatibility doesn't change this. I'm honestly a little baffled as to how you came to this conclusion.

Frankly, if Party B decides to go to court they can take both GNU and party C and D to court and all 3 will end up being held liable.

I highly, highly doubt that. If Party C is illegally distributing software outside of proper licensing, then there is zero chance that GNU/ the FSF is going to be held liable for their actions. Party D may end up with some hefty legal fees, but since they were given misleading information (i.e. the wrong license info) and weren't acting maliciously, then they should be otherwise fine. I would guess that they could probably go after Party C to recoup any financial losses as well. Party C is overall fucked because, as you said, they're morons who don't understand licensing.

 

[TranscendentThots]

So I was looking at what can be done with blender apps and there are some good things to it and well some not so good things.

Blender apps is a way you can modify blender to work as a different application. You can use the various tools and features built into it to create a different software.
With apps you can modify the appearance allowing it to look like an different program all together.
A few examples of software that could be made with it.
A visual novel using images.
A 3D visual novel system which you could use 3D models rather than rendered images.
An image viewer and more.

The biggest problem with blender is it is distributed under GPL 2.0 so your IP protection is compromised.

Another good factor is it is in python.
They have basically every tool you can imagine needing in it for that development.

Of course you could also make use of the blender game engine as an alternative.

You must be registered to see the links

Here is were you stop reading if you don't care about the issue with the GPL2.0 license

GNU claims you could freely distribute any program that made use of the program because they assume all libraries are made to work with it if it so happens to do so.
That's complete horse shit. Given python is used for blenders app meaning any proprietary python library would still work with it.
Also the images would still hold copy right if you made a visual novel.

What GNU is saying under the

You must be registered to see the links

is this.
There are 4 parties meaning different people or groups of people.

Party A is the blender foundation.

Party B is some guy who has a library that works with multiple game engines that are proprietary.

Assume party C is morons they understand code but not a software license.
They are making a new program. They use the blender app system and Party B's library which isn't free to distribute it's proprietary.

Party D is the buy / receiver of the new software.
He buys the software. But because party C used a GPL 2.0 software he thinks he can freely distribute it. After all that's what it says on the GPL 2.0 license.

Party Assholes being GNU is the cause of all this shit because they made an assumption that any software library that can be interfaced to a GPL2.0 software must have been made for it.
They didn't take in account languages like python and other scripting languages aren't as easily restricted. That said even C and C++ libraries written for one game engine can be made to work on another by writing a wrapper or hooks for them. Sure it takes a little more work but it is still possible. I've seen it done. So their assumption is pure horse shit.

They also don't take into the issue of incompetence such as we seen from the 3D visual novel maker which tried to redistribute the unity game engine.

One idiots stupidity doesn't take away mine or anyone else's right to make a profit nor does GNU's stupidity for not knowing what is and isn't possible with software. I don't actually believe they don't know it is possible I think they just don't give a shit. Granted this is all being discussed on a software piracy forum so I get the irony.

They could have struct a balance that would make sense such as saying it is legal to distribute the parts of the software that is open source the parts that are not are covered under their perspective licensing. The way they currently have it written is misleading as hell. Frankly, if Party B decides to go to court they can take both GNU and party C and D to court and all 3 will end up being held liable. GNU created the situation by writing a misleading license and then further increased it with conflicting and misleading statements on their site trying to explain the shit they wrote. If you have to explain a legal document outside of itself that's a bad sign you fucked up writing it.

Wow, neat. I use Blender all the time, and I've never even heard of Blender Apps. This sounds pretty interesting.

Licensing issues aside, how do you actually make a visual novel with it?

 

[Tompte]

Wow, neat. I use Blender all the time, and I've never even heard of Blender Apps. This sounds pretty interesting.

It was announced only a couple of weeks ago, at

You must be registered to see the links

.

My understanding is that this is very much in the early stages, with the end goal being to leverage and provide existing features of Blender to more people, without giving them ALL of Blender all at once. So if you want to do some task using Blender, you could make a little app that only does that one thing in a streamlined way, rather than asking users to learn how to use Blender. That's what this looks like to me, at least. It lines up with things they've said in the past.

I'm curious about what this will bring. Even with their toy example of dragging models into a scene, it's easy to imagine something like that being used in education.

As to the open source license, I could very much see a game engine running on Blender being open sourced (probably to its benefit) but that wouldn't mean that the games themselves or their content would have to be. Just as when you make models or write your own Python scripts in Blender, you're not bound by the GPL to share them. But I don't know. I'm no lawyer.

 

[shabadu]

My understanding is that this is very much in the early stages, with the end goal being to leverage and provide existing features of Blender to more people, without giving them ALL of Blender all at once. So if you want to do some task using Blender, you could make a little app that only does that one thing in a streamlined way, rather than asking users to learn how to use Blender. That's what this looks like to me, at least. It lines up with things they've said in the past.

I'm curious about what this will bring. Even with their toy example of dragging models into a scene, it's easy to imagine something like that being used in education.

They have a little more info on their

You must be registered to see the links

but that's pretty much it in a nutshell. Some of the examples they give is a collaborative meeting tool that can display images and videos with user annotations, or a stand-alone architecture visualization for a one-off project. It basically allows for developers to strip out unnecessary and unused features, package in specific content, and then give it a custom UI to streamline things for non-Blender users.

Like for the archviz thing, you could essentially program Blender in a way that it's hard-locked to an Eevee preview, loads a specific scene of a house, and has a simplified fly camera, all while preventing the end user from deleting anything or changing sculpt mode or whatever. Maybe set up points of interest in certain locations that the camera can jump to, or a toggle that switches the HDRI out between a day and night version. Give the user multiple options for carpet color or kitchen backsplash. The list goes on.

Licensing issues aside, how do you actually make a visual novel with it?

Through a bunch of raw programming in Python. You would basically need to write the entire interface and game logic from scratch.

There will probably (eventually) be some pre-made templates you could use, but IMO there's really no point in using this over Renpy, Unity, Godot, etc. I'm not saying that you can't or that you shouldn't, but just that I think the other options already available are much better suited for game development. Keep in mind, too, that it seems like you still need to have Blender installed in some form for these to work, even if its a portable version that's included with the app file.

 

[Diconica]

Yes, licensing and IP protection laws are nebulous, hard to navigate, and can be confusing at the best of times for, say, a hobbyist game dev. There is an entire specialization in this field for lawyers for a reason.

That said, I'm a little confused as to what your issue is with the GPL. Not trying to be an ass here, but...

Are you saying that you don't like how the GPL allows for people to distribute software that uses that particular license? You mention this in the context of making a game, so do you want to create an entire game using Blender/other GPL program as the base but don't want to release it for free? What exactly is the problem?

No, GPL 2.0 more specifically and the way they explain the rights on the site are miss leading.
The problem is GPL 2.0 assumes that the party righting the program understands the licensing and what can and can't be done.
Technically you aren't supposed to use a library with a more restrictive license with GPL 2.0.
GNU makes the false assumption everyone will understand that or bother looking at all the licenses involved.
They then proceed to act as if any library that happens to work with A GPL product was made to work with it specifically.
That's a false assumption as I explained above.
They then assume if the person was able to get it to work with their software you the library developer or other software developer loose the right to limit your codes distribution or demand payment.
They also seem to expect other license developers to stamp something on their license saying we aren't GPL compliant licenses.
Why the fuck we do that when they are the odd balls causing the issue here.

I have no idea where this is coming from. You can't freely distribute software with a more restrictive license just because you used it in a GPL-based program, and there is nothing that states otherwise. In fact, if you do use something with a GPL-incompatible license you have to modify the text of the GPL such that it specifies the other license as well.

You must be registered to see the links

Using different programming languages doesn't change this. Modifying other libraries or using wrappers for compatibility doesn't change this. I'm honestly a little baffled as to how you came to this conclusion.

You should tell GNU that because there are multiple sections on their page explaining GPL 2.0 that disagree with you and try to shift the burden to the non GPL developer. ## will be used to separate these.

You must be registered to see the links

Then the way they order and explain stuff creates issues.
This is near the top. With this answer do you think many people are going to look further? No of course not.
They won't look to see if there are exceptions or software that should exist because someone mixed proprietary and GPL code.
So they will assume they can just share it which they can't and can end up in jail for and find. Does GNU give a shit? NO.

You must be registered to see the links

No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.


##############################################################################################################################################################
They put this down further. It should be near the top the first thing people read.

You must be registered to see the links

If the libraries that you link with fall within the following exception in the GPL:

However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

then you don't have to do anything special to use them; the requirement to distribute source code for the whole program does not include those libraries, even if you distribute a linked executable containing them. Thus, if the libraries you need come with major parts of a proprietary operating system, the GPL says people can link your program with them without any conditions.

If you want your program to link against a library not covered by that exception, you need to add your own exception, wholly outside of the GPL. This copyright notice and license notice give permission to link with the program FOO:

Copyright (C) yyyy <name of copyright holder>
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
Linking ABC statically or dynamically with other modules is making a combined work based on ABC. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole combination.
In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders of ABC give you permission to combine ABC program with free software programs or libraries that are released under the GNU LGPL and with code included in the standard release of DEF under the XYZ license (or modified versions of such code, with unchanged license). You may copy and distribute such a system following the terms of the GNU GPL for ABC and the licenses of the other code concerned, provided that you include the source code of that other code when and as the GNU GPL requires distribution of source code.
Note that people who make modified versions of ABC are not obligated to grant this special exception for their modified versions; it is their choice whether to do so. The GNU General Public License gives permission to release a modified version without this exception; this exception also makes it possible to release a modified version which carries forward this exception.

You should put this text in each file to which the exception applies.

Only the copyright holders for the program can legally authorize this exception. If you wrote the whole program yourself, then assuming your employer or school does not claim the copyright, you are the copyright holder—so you can authorize the exception. But if you want to use parts of other GPL-covered programs by other authors in your code, you cannot authorize the exception for them. You have to get the approval of the copyright holders of those programs.

When other people modify the program, they do not have to make the same exception for their code—it is their choice whether to do so.

If the libraries you intend to link with are nonfree, please also see

You must be registered to see the links

.
##############################################################################################################################################################
Again should have been up above

You must be registered to see the links

If you do this, your program won't be fully usable in a free environment. If your program depends on a nonfree library to do a certain job, it cannot do that job in the Free World. If it depends on a nonfree library to run at all, it cannot be part of a free operating system such as GNU; it is entirely off limits to the Free World.
So please consider: can you find a way to get the job done without using this library? Can you write a free replacement for that library?

If the program is already written using the nonfree library, perhaps it is too late to change the decision. You may as well release the program as it stands, rather than not release it. But please mention in the README that the need for the nonfree library is a drawback, and suggest the task of changing the program so that it does the same job without the nonfree library. Please suggest that anyone who thinks of doing substantial further work on the program first free it from dependence on the nonfree library.

Note that there may also be legal issues with combining certain nonfree libraries with GPL-covered Free Software. Please see

You must be registered to see the links

for more information.

I highly, highly doubt that. If Party C is illegally distributing software outside of proper licensing, then there is zero chance that GNU/ the FSF is going to be held liable for their actions. Party D may end up with some hefty legal fees, but since they were given misleading information (i.e. the wrong license info) and weren't acting maliciously, then they should be otherwise fine. I would guess that they could probably go after Party C to recoup any financial losses as well. Party C is overall fucked because, as you said, they're morons who don't understand licensing.

Providing false legal advice can make them liable.

What they should do is have a warning at the top of this mess.
Some times people make software they should not by mixing GPL and non-GPL compliant code. It should not exist report it.
It is not legal to distribute it. Just because a program software is GPL covered does not mean the art work isn't covered by copyright. You can distribute the software but not the art work unless it is specified in the license.
Yes, people have been sued over it. It can get more complicated when the art work is created by third party. If they give you a distribution license it would require one that allows you to sell the right to distribute that art work via other parties.

You don't see anything on that line explaining this stuff. Instead they intentionally put it in an order that will cause the most harm and issues. They damn sure know it. Because as their statement says it is to force other to be a part of their community.

 

[Diconica]

Wow, neat. I use Blender all the time, and I've never even heard of Blender Apps. This sounds pretty interesting.

Licensing issues aside, how do you actually make a visual novel with it?

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

 

[Diconica]

As to the open source license, I could very much see a game engine running on Blender being open sourced (probably to its benefit) but that wouldn't mean that the games themselves or their content would have to be. Just as when you make models or write your own Python scripts in Blender, you're not bound by the GPL to share them. But I don't know. I'm no lawyer.

Nope any game made with it per GNU is going to have to be open sourced free to distribute. It uses the worst GPL license there is 2.0.

You must be registered to see the links

 

[Diconica]

They have a little more info on their

You must be registered to see the links

but that's pretty much it in a nutshell. Some of the examples they give is a collaborative meeting tool that can display images and videos with user annotations, or a stand-alone architecture visualization for a one-off project. It basically allows for developers to strip out unnecessary and unused features, package in specific content, and then give it a custom UI to streamline things for non-Blender users.

Like for the archviz thing, you could essentially program Blender in a way that it's hard-locked to an Eevee preview, loads a specific scene of a house, and has a simplified fly camera, all while preventing the end user from deleting anything or changing sculpt mode or whatever. Maybe set up points of interest in certain locations that the camera can jump to, or a toggle that switches the HDRI out between a day and night version. Give the user multiple options for carpet color or kitchen backsplash. The list goes on.

Through a bunch of raw programming in Python. You would basically need to write the entire interface and game logic from scratch.

There will probably (eventually) be some pre-made templates you could use, but IMO there's really no point in using this over Renpy, Unity, Godot, etc. I'm not saying that you can't or that you shouldn't, but just that I think the other options already available are much better suited for game development. Keep in mind, too, that it seems like you still need to have Blender installed in some form for these to work, even if its a portable version that's included with the app file.

People are doing that much programming currently with Renpy.
This would simply give them the ability to do a lot more or work for projects that out grow renpy.
There is also the blender game engine that can be used as well. But it is also covered under GPL they just aren't as up front about which license it is covered under on the site for it.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

They don't say if it is lesser, 1,2,or 3. My guess it is 2.0 since it is an off shoot of blender which is 2.0

 

[TranscendentThots]

People are doing that much programming currently with Renpy.
This would simply give them the ability to do a lot more or work for projects that out grow renpy.
There is also the blender game engine that can be used as well. But it is also covered under GPL they just aren't as up front about which license it is covered under on the site for it.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

They don't say if it is lesser, 1,2,or 3. My guess it is 2.0 since it is an off shoot of blender which is 2.0

Incidentally, the link in your sig doesn't load unless you sign in. Is that the joke? Or is the link just broken?

 

[Diconica]

Incidentally, the link in your sig doesn't load unless you sign in. Is that the joke? Or is the link just broken?

No, used to not have to do that.
I just need to remove it at this point I don't really care any longer.
In fact just did that. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[TranscendentThots]

No, used to not have to do that.
I just need to remove it at this point I don't really care any longer.

Aw. The Wayback Machine doesn't have it archived, either.

Now I'm invested. What's the reason?

 

[Diconica]

Aw. The Wayback Machine doesn't have it archived, either.

Now I'm invested. What's the reason?

It will just get taken down if I post it here.

 

[shabadu]

The problem is GPL 2.0 assumes that the party righting the program understands the licensing and what can and can't be done.
Technically you aren't supposed to use a library with a more restrictive license with GPL 2.0.
GNU makes the false assumption everyone will understand that or bother looking at all the licenses involved.

Just so I'm clear on this, what you're saying is that because some people don't read or understand the GPL 2.0 license, or any license for that matter, that this is somehow the fault of GNU and the FSF?

They then proceed to act as if any library that happens to work with A GPL product was made to work with it specifically.
That's a false assumption as I explained above.
They then assume if the person was able to get it to work with their software you the library developer or other software developer loose the right to limit your codes distribution or demand payment.

Again, I just want to say that I'm not trying to be a dick here, but I need some proof of this. Show me where they say that all compatible libraries are assumed to be made for GPL. Show me where they say that library & software devs forfeit their copyright and ownership if someone else misuses their work. Give me something official, too. I don't care about someone's personal feelings or a blog post, I want something from the license itself, or a legal argument made in court by GNU/FSF, or something like that.

You're throwing around a lot of 'they do this' and 'they do that' but I'm not finding anything that supports this.

They also seem to expect other license developers to stamp something on their license saying we aren't GPL compliant licenses.
Why the fuck we do that when they are the odd balls causing the issue here.

I agree with you here. It should be the individual programmer's responsibility to read and understand all of the licenses involved in whatever it is they're doing, not the author behind any specific license.

What they should do is have a warning at the top of this mess.
Some times people make software they should not by mixing GPL and non-GPL compliant code. It should not exist report it.
It is not legal to distribute it. Just because a program software is GPL covered does not mean the art work isn't covered by copyright. You can distribute the software but not the art work unless it is specified in the license.
Yes, people have been sued over it. It can get more complicated when the art work is created by third party. If they give you a distribution license it would require one that allows you to sell the right to distribute that art work via other parties.

I may be taking this the wrong way, but is the problem that the FAQ section doesn't do enough to explain general copyright and IP law?

This is near the top. With this answer do you think many people are going to look further? No of course not.
They won't look to see if there are exceptions or software that should exist because someone mixed proprietary and GPL code.
So they will assume they can just share it which they can't and can end up in jail for and find. Does GNU give a shit? NO.

(...)

You don't see anything on that line explaining this stuff. Instead they intentionally put it in an order that will cause the most harm and issues. They damn sure know it. Because as their statement says it is to force other to be a part of their community.

It feels like you're trying really hard to paint GNU/FSF as some sort of evil and malicious entity, and put the blame on them when other people act irresponsibly. Why all the hate? Did they run over your dog or piss in your cornflakes or something?

Just as when you make models or write your own Python scripts in Blender, you're not bound by the GPL to share them.

Models definitely not. Basically anything that is a "program output" (i.e. the .blend files) is considered your own wholly owned work. However, any script or addon that uses the Blender API is derivative and thus will be GPL. You are not obligated to share your personal scripts, but if you are distributing it outside of yourself/organization, then you have to be compliant with the GPL.

This is why addons like

You must be registered to see the links

will have the main script available for free while the assets cost money.

 

[Tompte]

Models definitely not. Basically anything that is a "program output" (i.e. the .blend files) is considered your own wholly owned work. However, any script or addon that uses the Blender API is derivative and thus will be GPL. You are not obligated to share your personal scripts, but if you are distributing it outside of yourself/organization, then you have to be compliant with the GPL.

Thanks for clarifying, as well to the others who did.