urbdbdkxkd

I think this idiot is saying artists should work for free so game publishers can make more money in the same way that thousands (millions?) of devs donate their time to make VCs richer by working on open source projects. No thanks. Need to eat. If you want to use my assets so you can make money selling your game then you can pay me.

I think there's a couple of reasons.

1) Blender is ~25 years old and has been open source for ~20. That's a lot of development hours.

2) Blender marketplace and the acceptance of the existence of paid addons by (most) of the Blender community means that addon developers can actually be paid for their work and to maintain their addons.

Addons add a lot of features that Blender doesn't have out of the box and if you're using blender professionally you are probably reliant on addons for your workflow and it is a pain when they break (which they do frequently because the API is so unstable).

Not being attacked, and even being encouraged to charge for open source software (and adddons are all open source) on the understanding that not all devs are lucky enough to work for faangs, be tenured professors or still live with our parents, and that we need to eat is something that is pretty unique in my experience.

This is the major issue (along with the shitty undo system and dependency graph) As someone who develops addons they break the API with every release often entirely unnecessarily (e.g making a bunch of arguments keyword only in a random selection of methods every release and not documenting this fully).

They also break the API accidentally frequently. My favourite is that they have accidentally inverted the direction of rotation of the rotation operator 4 times since 2.8 and randomly removed one of the modes that the UV Smart project operator worked in.

The documentation is also lacking for the API and none existent for the main code base.

Despite this Blender is amazing but I do wish they were more professional. From a developer point of view the two things that would make life vastly better is if they

a) hired a technical writer to produce decent docs

b) stopped breaking the API every 5 minutes and when they did documented it properly (and in advance)

Its very logical. The current definition of sentience being proposed in the bill requires that an animal be able to perceive pain to be within scope (I'm not entirely convinced this should be a necessary condition, but that's what they've settled on) . When existing animal rights legislation was written lobsters, cephalapods etc. were considered incapable of doing this. The evidence now shows that they are capable of perceiving pain so they are being included in the bill (along with rats, deer and other mammals but not insects). Hence logical consistency is preserved. Perhaps the next time they revise animal rights legislation they will have evidence that insects can feel pain and so they will also be included.