Brogun wrote:
I think the key difference between Blender and Gimp development is that the Gimp devs have mentionned that working on Gimp is a spare time hobby for them, they have their job on the side.
I believe core gimp devs Michael Natterer and Oyvind Kolas are full time, don't know about Peter Sikking, thou.
Some project are crowd-funded (e.g. Nicolas Robidoux), most of the non-core development is on free-time, do-when-I-can basis,
some big things done by volunteers who are not a team (Elle Stone is a vivid example)
And I know for the fact there were thick wallet sponsors for specific 2.8 features development.Brogun wrote:
While the Blender development is the devs full time job, they have the foundation that manage donations and founds and that are using them to pay the core developers to maintain and bugfix Blender every single day (and they do a wonderfull job at it), and from time to time give some founding to another one for a specific work.
I don't see any difference in funding possibilities between the two.
Blender Foundation is not some charity organization that pays Blender devs. It is THEM and exists on Blender community donations.
What prevents GIMP devs from doing the same? GIMP receives donation in a variety of ways
- Microdonations, even bitmoney are accepted. They are not that poor as it may seem.
At the end of the day it all comes down to how well you get your project organized, advertised and prioritized.
Yes, Blender has daily builds, but they are not compiled daily by the humans, the devs submit fixes to the svn trunk, the builds
themselves are actually compiled by the buildbots. It does not require additional workforce.