Thank you so much for having us here @patdavid !
Let’s keep Natron community alive 
4 Likes
Hurray, now I need only one login to discuss about my favourite open source programs. 
Thanks Pat.
Im glad it all worked out.
3 Likes
Credit where credit is due: it was @Mondayman hanging in both places that saw the opportunity for Natron to join us, and pinged me about it! (Now we just need to get him to hang out in some other cinematography forums and keep tabs on where we might be able to help bring folks together! ).
3 Likes
Thank you Pat.
I will keep my eyes open.
How about this …
https://wiki.apertus.org/index.php/OpenCine
1 Like
Hm, for me I have to say this makes things much more easy. I was lurking on the Natron discourse for several years now (always a pinned tab), without having the initial energy to create an account. I have used Natron already for a little project (attach titles to moving objects in the video) and it worked great. I had some questions, but these were not too important, so I kept lurking. Now, I got an account to the Natron forums for free . Welcome Natron folks 
!
2 Likes
Hm, I dug deeper into 3D printing recently, and freecad has such a bad forum software … Just kidding, this is too far off at the moment, I guess 
.
1 Like
It’s only a 3d printed lithophane away from photohraphy
2 Likes
Hm, checking thingiverse, this seems nowadays to be a real trend. My approach is much simpler: printing photography gear and spare parts. The first design is a holder for 2 batteries and an SD card for my little supplementary camera, but it still waits to be printed since I do not own a printer myself. I’ll show the results here when there’s something to show. And the design and freecad source files will be floss’ed as well, of course. But let’s do an iteration first, there may be some corrections required.
1 Like
Hi @devernay,
Is there any way to access the archives of forum.natron.fr? At least in read only.
I am particularily interested in this page:
https://forum.natron.fr/t/why-change-natron-licence-to-gpl-v2/160
It is listed as a note in the Wikipedia page of Natron, and has not been cached by the Wayback Machine. I don’t know what exactly is in it, but I think it deserves to be accessible somewhere.
I have an old backup from November 2016 of the forum database, maybe Frédéric has a newer(?).
@rodlie Great, the release of Natron 2.0 – the switch to GPL license – dates from Aug 2016, so your back-up must contain the most part of the thread. Could you look it up for me?
Ok, might take a while since I need to go through the raw data in the database.
Thank you. please post it to pixls.us for reference, make sure it gets archived in the wayback machine, and maybe change the wikipedia link.
Also, the situation has changed a lot since this message.
The issue now is that since Alexandre Gauthier and INRIA own most of the code, we cannot switch to another license anyway. The only possible move is to restrict it to GPLv3 (instead of GPLv2 or later), so that the code cannot be used from a GPLv2 software. Frankly have no opinion on that.
GPL 2 vs. 3 does not matter for me, we do however link against GPL3 through third-party so the binaries are technically GPL3.
Also, since this project can’t change the license we should prefer ffmpeg/libraw gpl3 and remove gpl2+lgpl. Something to consider for a future release.
What components are gpl3? We explicitly build a gpl2 version of ffmpeg. Gpl3 components should be removed or distributed separately
I was mixing up GPL3 and LGPL3 on a couple of components, my bad.
Restored topic from https://forum.natron.fr/t/why-change-natron-licence-to-gpl-v2/160
Why change Natron licence to GPL V2?
rcspam 2015-08-28 11:09:20.184167
Hi,
In this commit, Natron is now under GPL V2.
Can you explain your motivation ? Why change from Mozilla to GPL ?
Thanx
MrKepzie 2015-08-28 12:05:13.590312
The main reasoning is that in the future there will be derivative work spun off Natron, and we want to be able to still control where our source code is going and who is selling it.
GPL will enable us to have a commercial version of Natron that will be identical to the open-source version, but with support.
If we were to keep the MPL, there are some features that unfortunately we would have to refrain from implementing without disrupting:
A) An open-source version equal to the commercial version.
B) Good relationship with the developers in the eco-system (other companies making money off plug-ins).
Matthieu, as for the studios you mention, they can still make customisation of the software via Python (that’s what most studios do) since loading Python scripts in a GPL software does not make them GPL. If they want to make a complete derivative work of the source code, they would have then either to:
A) Make it GPL so everyone can benefit of it
B) Buy to us a commercial license where we allow them to do so
Choice B) is what most studios will use anyway because they are not going to use a product without having complete support on it.
All this licensing scheme is in the hope to sustain the quality of the open-source product we give, while still receiving funds from other sources. Unfortunately we are not going to be funded by the French government forever.
What Blender cannot do compared to us is selling their software as a commercial license (with support etc…), because they have over 300 contributors, making it impossible to have everyone agree on selling their intellectual property.
In our cases, the number of people owning the software is small and known making it pretty easy for us to re-license the software as we wish.
Hope this clarifies the reasoning. If you’ve got any question I’ll be glad to answer.
Alex
colorgrade13 2015-08-28 20:32:18.625042
Okay!! I think I understand. So blender has a HueCorrect node. Under GPL, will you be able to use that nodes code without having to do it from scratch? Or, am I way off base here.
bfuze 2015-09-02 05:55:10.888737
So, do you plan to sell a license of Natron? Just like fusion or nuke someday? I hope you guys don't change your mind and begin to limit the set of tools in the open source version. I really love your product I think is going to be an amazing tool at the level of nuke or higher
Azerupi 2015-09-02 10:08:40.166572
I think the plan is not to have multiple versions but to have an optional fee for support. Mainly to be able to continue full-time quality development. Also optional paid support gives studios a certain guarantee that Natron is not going to disappear overnight, which is probably a big deal when you base your whole workflow on a tool.
The goal is to be able to fund Natron's development in the future. ( @MrKepzie, correct me if I am wrong )
MrKepzie 2015-09-02 10:18:30.870699
Azerupi is right, we do not plan to sell licenses the same way BMD or The Foundry do with Fusion/Nuke, but instead sell support licenses (mainly for studios). The terms of this license are not yet written and will not be available right away after v2 is shipped. The GPL version will stay up to date and you will still be able to use it as you are used to.
Zabander 2015-09-02 14:06:34.917174
Thank you guys, now it is clear 
manuel_songokuh 2015-09-02 18:11:35.337905
hello
i think, it's possible:
natron will be founder like ask Blender foundation, and natron foundation will does to call artists for create short movie used 100% of NATRON so will be open movie like the big bunny, natron foundation can to earn moneys for developers and site server and spot and will be stand in siggraphic show..
see example from blender philosophy:
this is possible for natron future: office, pays new developers and shop dvd tutorial, training natron..
this is not bad.. so natron can alive for ever and free forever (because there is earn from shop: dvd, projects like orange, mango, gooseberry..)
mrkepzie: i think this is good for you, your life future stable..
i do for think ok?
And the commit regarding GPL2 has several comments with info: Natron is now distributed under the GPL license (v2 or later) · MrKepzie/Natron@42ca28a · GitHub
Thanks a lot @rodlie!
I updated the Wikipedia page to point here.
edit For the record, I think that MrKepzie’s assertion that “loading Python scripts in a GPL software does not make them GPL” is wrong as soon as the Python scripts imports Natron’s module. Similarily, it has been established that Blender’s python add-ons must be GPL because they do import bpy and the bpy module (Blender’s) is GPL.
I have issue cannot insert WriteNode. Any recomendation to fix this issue? This error like image below. Pleashe help me! Screenshot_2019-08-12_11-31-29|502x139
