Post #1869486

2026-04-30 22:48 UTC

RE: https://mstdn.social/@fsiddi/116489467846028089 I feel like the response really hit them like a Roosendaal of Cuboid Primitives. I actually don&#39;t doubt Blender&#39;s people&#39;s commitment to doing the right thing. What I&#39;m interested in is: Are they weak when there&#39;s sufficient money on the table? or credulous to to how money shapes decision making? I think I would have just spun the money out into a third party who hired their own contractors who would be encouraged to propose their merge requests on equal footing with other outside contrbs.

Replies (4)

@lps@mograph.social 2026-05-01 00:31

@doctormo@floss.social a real shame, very tone deaf move by the foundation :(

Open ##2393013
@chrishuck@hachyderm.io 2026-05-01 02:00

@doctormo@floss.social It seems a little odd that he would be so surprised by the reaction from the community. I hope they do the right thing.

Open ##2393014
@pranabekka@mastodon.social 2026-05-01 10:03

@doctormo@floss.social I don't think they could've been that surprised. Third party could've worked, though I don't know how separate they can be. And OpenAI (or Anthropic?) would've wanted their logo, which can work with third party. I wonder if they're looking to integrate LLMs, somehow. It couldn't be a remote service, and not enabled by default. At least I hope not.

Open ##2393015
@notoriousiptg@fediscience.org 2026-05-01 12:26

@doctormo@floss.social interesting idea. Tho I would think a bunch more PRs by a third party is only helpful if you also have funding for a bunch more (trustworthy) people to do the review.

Open ##2393016