Should anyone, who modified CHDK sources, publish them? - General Discussion and Assistance - CHDK Forum
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Should anyone, who modified CHDK sources, publish them?

  • 29 Replies
  • 14909 Views
*

Offline Barney Fife

  • *****
  • 1157
    • Gay Outdoorsmen
Should anyone, who modified CHDK sources, publish them?
« on: 26 / February / 2008, 17:22:37 »
Advertisements
Deleted
« Last Edit: 22 / April / 2008, 12:47:06 by Barney Fife »
Logged
[acseven/admin commented out: please refrain from more direct offensive language to any user. FW complaints to me] I felt it imperative to withdraw my TOTAL participation. Nobody has my permission, nor the right, to reinstate MY posts. Make-do with my quoted text in others' replies only. Bye
*

Offline whim

  • ******
  • 2046
  • A495/590/620/630 ixus70/115/220/230/300/870 S95
Should anyone, who modified CHDK sources, publish them?
« Reply #1 on: 26 / February / 2008, 18:42:22 »
Quote from: Barney Fife on 26 / February / 2008, 17:22:37
Interesting, everyone else has shared their code with you so you could make your build, but you're not willing to share back.

Nice.

On the same theme - I was always under the impression that GPL implied that if you used the code for derived
works you were obliged to supply those as you found them yourself, i.e. with sourcecode ...
From: trunk (root): COPYING
Quote
........ (snip)
  3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
    1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
    years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
    cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
    machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
    distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
    customarily used for software interchange; or,

    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
    to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
    allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
    received the program in object code or executable form with such
    an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)         ............ (snip)

not trying to be nasty here, Microfunguy, just wondering how people feel about this,

wim
« Last Edit: 26 / February / 2008, 19:15:37 by whim »
Logged
*

Offline Barney Fife

  • *****
  • 1157
    • Gay Outdoorsmen
Should anyone, who modified CHDK sources, publish them?
« Reply #2 on: 27 / February / 2008, 03:02:41 »
Deleted
« Last Edit: 22 / April / 2008, 12:47:26 by Barney Fife »
Logged
[acseven/admin commented out: please refrain from more direct offensive language to any user. FW complaints to me] I felt it imperative to withdraw my TOTAL participation. Nobody has my permission, nor the right, to reinstate MY posts. Make-do with my quoted text in others' replies only. Bye
*

Offline fjf

  • *
  • 1
Should anyone, who modified CHDK sources, publish them?
« Reply #3 on: 27 / February / 2008, 03:37:25 »
There is has been a great deal of interest in StereoData Maker by 3D photographers.  Until it was developed, synchronizing digital cameras was very difficult and expensive.  Professionally hardwired point and shoot cameras cost as much as $2,000, and the synchronization is not as good as with StereoData Maker.   I believe source code should be shared, but regardless, I hope everybody here can find a way to get along.

I also want to mention that there is now a beta version of CHDK for the Canon SD800IS.  A pair of these cameras would be an excellent choice for stereo photography if they can be successfully synchronized with SDM.   They take excellent pictures and they have wide angle (28mm) equivalent capability.   They are  no longer made, but they are still available on Amazon.com for about $220.   If one camera is mounted upside down, the lenses would be approximately eye space apart and the USB ports would be on the outside, which is an advantage when you are trying to minimize the stereo base.
Logged
*

Offline Barney Fife

  • *****
  • 1157
    • Gay Outdoorsmen
Should anyone, who modified CHDK sources, publish them?
« Reply #4 on: 27 / February / 2008, 03:45:22 »
Deleted
« Last Edit: 22 / April / 2008, 12:47:47 by Barney Fife »
Logged
[acseven/admin commented out: please refrain from more direct offensive language to any user. FW complaints to me] I felt it imperative to withdraw my TOTAL participation. Nobody has my permission, nor the right, to reinstate MY posts. Make-do with my quoted text in others' replies only. Bye
*

Offline PhyrePhoX

  • *****
  • 2254
  • make RAW not WAR
    • PhyreWorX
Should anyone, who modified CHDK sources, publish them?
« Reply #5 on: 27 / February / 2008, 04:19:56 »
hey guys, chill! even when microfunguy never discloses his sourcecode, he still contributes. it might be illegal to not supply the sources, but he still does alot for the 3d community. throwing him out of the chdk forum wont do any good imo, because if he has chosen to not reveal his code, he certainly wont do it after being thrown out at all (though he might continue to "steal" secretly stuff the chdk devs made). let's discuss this matter on a friendly base, please. i'm interested especially in the opinions of the other "great devs" that made chdk possible and as great as it is right now, and of course of microfunguy. stay cool y'all.
Logged
*

Offline Barney Fife

  • *****
  • 1157
    • Gay Outdoorsmen
Should anyone, who modified CHDK sources, publish them?
« Reply #6 on: 27 / February / 2008, 04:32:12 »
Deleted
« Last Edit: 22 / April / 2008, 12:48:40 by Barney Fife »
Logged
[acseven/admin commented out: please refrain from more direct offensive language to any user. FW complaints to me] I felt it imperative to withdraw my TOTAL participation. Nobody has my permission, nor the right, to reinstate MY posts. Make-do with my quoted text in others' replies only. Bye
*

Offline staylo

  • **
  • 51
Should anyone, who modified CHDK sources, publish them?
« Reply #7 on: 27 / February / 2008, 05:15:53 »
Barney, I appeal to you not be too rash or suspicious about this. David had a reasonable reason for wanting to withhold the source; to avoid the confusion of multiple builds. (In my opinion, this is both a weakness and a strength of CHDK). You've given him no opportunity to speak his own case before removing his posting rights. Please keep an open mind that there may be an explanation or reasoning behind his actions more innocent than that you suspect him of.

It seems to me to always be better to be able to bring someone round to an idea rather than trying to force their hand with rules. In the case of source code, the advantages of a full copy of source are almost impossible to overvalue: Anyone armed with an idea, however unrelated its purpose may be to that of the code he is taking it from, and regardless of programming experience, is able to tweak a parameter here and there and have a fully working block of code that would otherwise have taken hours to create. A very useful piece of code in one application can be used in another entirely; I've lost track of the countless times I've been able to grasp an idea from a piece of code used for a project and purpose I know absolutely nothing about. In short, open source is a programmer's - especially an inexperienced programmer's - lifeblood. And we can always use more blood donors!
Logged
*

Offline whim

  • ******
  • 2046
  • A495/590/620/630 ixus70/115/220/230/300/870 S95
Should anyone, who modified CHDK sources, publish them?
« Reply #8 on: 27 / February / 2008, 05:18:52 »
This is just a matter of of principle - there's absolutely no reason why a person / persons could not release closed source
software based on GPL'ed code. However, it's all in the way you do that. As far as I understand, the GPL v2 (under
which CHDK is released) allows you to release such software, but you have to separate closed from open source.
Which means AFAIK that all source files in any trunk version, even if modified, are (c) under GPL, and require a
distributor to supply the GPL license + source code for those; any non-GPL code can be supplied under whatever license
it's writer(s)/owner(s) think(s) appropiate, but the two are not allowed to be integrated into a single binary. As I said,
it's all in COPYING.

I would also like to repeat here that this is not an attack on anybody, I only would like to have this sorted out properly

wim

PS  Mods please feel free to move this to another thread (General Discussion and Assistance ?) if it's thought to be
     off-topic.

edit: typo

   
« Last Edit: 27 / February / 2008, 06:47:14 by whim »
Logged
*

Offline PhyrePhoX

  • *****
  • 2254
  • make RAW not WAR
    • PhyreWorX
Should anyone, who modified CHDK sources, publish them?
« Reply #9 on: 27 / February / 2008, 05:31:35 »
hm, banning microfunguy isnt a good idea. let the man speak for himself. im sure there is an explanation.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
« previous next »
 

Related Topics


SimplePortal © 2008-2014, SimplePortal