Implementing MixBox mixing for Krita

There have been numerous requests to implement the MixBox mixing method into Krita by others, but the problem is that MixBox has an incompatible license. I would like to developers/leaders of Krita to try and reach out to SecretWeapons. Everyone would benefit from it.
Response from SecretWeapons team:

"the Mixbox license is incompatible with use in Krita. The Mixbox code on GitHub is provided for non-commercial purposes only. Since users can make profit by using Krita, and Krita itself is currently being sold on Steam, this would go against our non-commercial license. "

Then we can only wait for the brothers in the open source world to do this: make a gpl mixbox from their paper.

I think the situation is more nuanced than that quote indicates.
MixBox are happy to license their code to anyone (I assume this is for a price and with conditions) and want people to get a license for their code. They encourage users to contact developers:

“The best way to get Mixbox into your favourite painting software is to tell the creators that you want it!”
They give a list of contact emails for many digital painting applications, but not krita.
Krita is FOSS and uses FOSS code from many places and must keep the code as FOSS.

This means artists couldn’t sell artworks made with a software that uses mixbox code? Wow. Imagine you couldn’t sell a book you wrote in MS Word or something. I’ve never seen such restrictions and I’ve seen a lot of weird software licenses in my life.

3 Likes

Lol thats a weird phrasing on their part and being sold on steam for little more donation if one chooses to do so and krita can still be dled free.

Krita is FOSS and that’s one reason many knew from start that the license is incompatible. It’s not only because it was sold in steam or that we can make a profit by selling our work. Once the code is in Krita it must be distributed Open Source, the public then can do what they want with it [even selling it] as long as its still distributed Open Source. Such is the spirit of GPL. [If I understand it correctly, if i misunderstood it please do correct me]

I guess in that way GPL is both commercial and non-commercial/ and that hits their restriction of non-commercial use + the code needing to be made available to the public.

I would understand not profiting from the code itself as implemented to other software, so does this mean if i ever use this mixing i cant sold my artwork nor can i commission with it?

It may be slow but the only thing we can do now is like what The Two said to wait for someone to make GPL mixbox.

I noticed this the other day. they are happy to put Krita on the comparison chart but know well that implementation of their code is not possible in Krita :slight_smile:

1 Like

Instead of openly and honestly saying why Krita is not allowed to use their code, and in this way to all the naive people who believe the creators of Mixbox are “noble people who would make their code available to the world if it were not used “to make money””, and say that they do care about making money with this code, and as much as possible, they are using this perfidious method to sic users of various graphics software on the manufacturers of their graphics software to beg them to implement the Mixbox code.
And they will probably secretly hope that if only enough users beg their software manufacturer for this implementation, the latter will acquire the necessary licenses from Mixbox.
And then the veil of ostensible nobility will immediately be swapped for the greedy face of commerce, and the nobility of “wanting to share this code with the world” will be quantified in a sum with as many digits before the decimal point as possible.
Give Mixbox to the World, and the Worlds money to Mixbox, it will then be called!

Michelist

3 Likes

I think making money of their code is okay and not an issue. But they can be a bit more clear about their license and say it outright that who ever needs mixbox code can contact for a license in return of money.

But I get it, their strategy is to sensationalise a revolutionary new method which is not seen in any industry standard product and then bank on its popularity. They did it to gain PR and ultimately business from it. Not a bad strategy since it is going viral on the social media, just like that video years ago which explain how all the colour mixing and display was bugged.

This video was all over the internet few years back and after some sensationalism (I am not saying it was wrong) the hype went away and everyone got back to actual work and that is painting and practising art. This trend is similar, its not that having mixbox is the sole requirement to do digital painting and having it will solve or magically make your art a masterpiece in one click. but it becomes a way to get distracted and for people like me to divert our attention towards other things than our own shortcomings for a moment :slight_smile:

8 Likes

Well said. The first step of a good marketing plan is to create need. MixBox seem to be doing a good job in that area. I’m sure it’s a perfectly good product but all the fantastic art in Krita’s gallery proves that it’s not a true need.

4 Likes

Most people had gone years in digital creating wonderful art without it using other software. Its another tool , one that would be greatly appreciated specially by those who come from traditional background.

But like other tool, you can go without it and still make mindblowing art [no matter the software of choice]

I wish i was better with c++ , because their reasoning about krita kinda piss me off ngl. :joy:

4 Likes

Sure if it is available then great, it does add some value, but it is not compulsory :slight_smile:

1 Like

I can parallel mode all day and night. :rofl:

Exactly that. I dislike like they behave. They should say wich way the mouse is running.

2 Likes

Mypaint is not even listed in their video comparison. :thinking:
The following is a display of the mixing effect of mypaint2.0.1.

Sorry, I got off topic……

1 Like

I don’t agree with such an argument.
The functionality of the software itself will not improve your artistic perception and painting, which is what a normal person should know. Just because people wish there was a better way doesn’t mean they will be distracted by it.
If you resort to “practice”, then there will be Photoshop or SAI artists who will come out and say: “I made this painting with the simplest function, the functions you do in Krita are unnecessary and not needed!”
Yes, many outstanding electronic art works in the world do not use some auxiliary functions. But we can’t deny the efforts of the developers. Or, it is entirely possible that the mainstream manufacturers are not willing to take into account the feelings of artists.
There are no features that are useless, we just need to weigh the cost: the fact that mixbox put out papers and source code without worrying about competitors shows that the process in between is not as simple as one might think. Plus this is not what most people need. Therefore, it is not reasonable to put it on the main road of krita. But the beauty of gpl is that as soon as someone develops an open source version, then all gpl software including krita can be applied. So while they employ marketing tactics (as evidenced by the firestorm on Chinese websites and Japanese Twitter last month), they also make it easier to attract some of the great people who are dedicated to the free world to participate in related research, which is not entirely a bad thing.

3 Likes

Guys, this a completely normal and standard situation. Don’t read too much into it.

It’s a technology with a non-commercial license. There are thousands other technologies with a license just like this one. All it means is that if you want to use it in your software, you have to pay for it. It then helps you sell your software and you make profit.

So, of course that you CAN SELL your artwork created in software that uses Mixbox. But the software had to buy the Mixbox license first and there’s nothing wrong or unclear about that.

The only sad thing is that we can’t use their implementation in Krita. But I wouldn’t say they’re the bad guys. They gave us the paper and they didn’t patent it (to my knowledge) - that’s actually a pretty positive situation. So come on, cheer up!

1 Like

LMMS integration can be the way to go.
The same way G`Mic is integrated.

1 Like

That something we understand already - even before. License is incompatible even if we pay for it for the sole nature of FOSS and GPL.

But the way they phrase their reply to OP - is… slimy to say the least. It points to it being Krita’s fault because krita is being sold in steam for extra donation cash .

This what pissed me off. The wording itself is unclear. Since users can make profit by using krita - what do they mean by that?

3 Likes

It is totally clear that they talking exactly about their code on github. They don’t want anyone to use it in a commercial way without buying a license. So they asked no to use that code from github as is. And code itself isn’t GPL so it isn’t compatible with Krita anyway.
We need somebody to do a custom implementation or port Mypaint algorithm (that already in progress and looks promising)

1 Like

I can’t tell what they meant by that, but I can tell you why such companies might not agree to Krita taking their code even if it paid (because I guess it would be possible for Krita to pay for it, there could be a fund raiser or whatnot, if it was deemed important enough).

Basically, if Krita even gives money for the license, it would still have to be GPL-compatible. And just because Krita bought it, doesn’t mean any other GPL program must pay - they can just take it from Krita, for free.

The exact same situation as with PSD standards… Adobe sells them, but we couldn’t buy…

Not that I ever talked to Adobe or Mixbox people :wink: Maybe they would be actually fine with selling it to Krita, if they accepted that Gimp would have this code in the future as well, without paying. (I don’t think there are other important GPL-licensed programs? I mean MyPaint has its own pigment mixing, and other than that, you only get maybe Blender, or Opentoonz and other programs like that). It’s not like they would lose so much money on that. Sure they kinda can sell it to FOSS world only once, but then, that world is not that huge, and most of their clients are commercial anyways. Selling to FOSS would probably just end up with some small projects add it, but if they were commercial, they wouldn’t bother. So no loss for Mixbox anyway?

But I don’t know…