Please sign in to comment.
one more ? mark
- Loading branch information...
one more ? mark
|@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ Because that model simply would not work. In order for Syphon to be useful, it n|
|Cost is a barrier to entry, and Syphon is a tool that in many ways 'outsources' application functionality, something commercial applications may not want to do. Taking a commercial approach seems like a way to hinder adoption (Think of it from the commercial developers point of view: you want me to pay you to license your code, so my app will work with competing applications!?), and scares away the most important demographic who would find the most utility and from it (people who leverage exciting realtime environments like Open Frameworks, Max MSP, Cinder, Quartz, Unity etc - usually open source, or very open communities). Adobe and kin is not our (initial) target for adoption. Allowing easy access, and thus easy experimentation was a definite goal, and that is a sweet spot for the open source and new media communities. I do want to see a Photoshop / Syphon plugin though. That would be awesome.|
|-In a way, it could not be anything but open source. Syphons implementation transparency and licensing allows quick and painless adoption by communities and developers that use small, niche tools that want integration into larger environments. It was a matter of necessityÊif we wanted Syphon to gain traction.|
|+In a way, it could not be anything but open source. Syphons implementation transparency and licensing allows quick and painless adoption by communities and developers that use small, niche tools that want integration into larger environments. It was a matter of necessity if we wanted Syphon to gain traction.|
|###Syphon is interesting in that it had a very careful development. It wasn't on GitHub or Google Code from the beginning. You and Tom Butterworth spent a lot of time developing it without telling anyone, then releasing it as a private beta, and finally releasing it publicly. Why was it done this way?|