7 ms·

Made with: 1. OpenCV 2.0 - C++, C, Python interfaces; BSD license - http://opencv.willowgarage.com/wiki/ http://opencv.willowgarage.com/wiki/ 2. FaceTracker -

by keane 15y ago

Made with: 1. OpenCV 2.0 - C++, C, Python interfaces; BSD license - http://opencv.willowgarage.com/wiki/ http://opencv.willowgarage.com/wiki/ 2. FaceTracker - C/C++ API; "research purposes only", to download email Jason.saragih@csiro.au - http://web.mac.com/jsaragih/FaceTracker/FaceTracker.html http://web.mac.com/jsaragih/FaceTracker/FaceTracker.html 3. Method Art Image Clone - realtime cloning library (from gts, glew, glib); MIT license - http://methodart.blogspot.com/2011/07/fast-image-cloning-library-ive-written.html http://methodart.blogspot.com/2011/07/fast-image-cloning-lib... 4. openFrameworks - C++ toolkit; MIT license - https://github.com/openframeworks/openFrameworks https://github.com/openframeworks/openFrameworks 5. FaceOSC (ofxFaceTracker) - active appearance model addon for openFrameworks; "open source" - https://github.com/kylemcdonald/ofxFaceTracker https://github.com/kylemcdonald/ofxFaceTracker

kragen 15y ago
So it might be open-source, but depends on the non-open-source (and not even publicly available) project FaceTracker?
- keane 15y ago
  Kyle McDonald discusses this: "I imagine FaceOSC being used to prototype ideas surrounding face-based interaction. I created it because Jason Saragih, the researcher behind FaceTracker, uses an open source non-commercial license for his code. He asks that anyone who wants to use the code email him directly, as a way to keep track of the usage. This is great, but I know that one of the fastest ways to get cool stuff happening is to make new tools and research accessible to a wide audience. So I asked him if it would be ok to make a standalone app for people to prototype their ideas — even if they don't have access to the code. Everyone already 'speaks' OSC so I thought this would be the easiest way to get the technology out there. Eventually, if people need to integrate it into a single application, they can contact Jason directly and use my ofxFaceTracker addon to get started: https://github.com/kylemcdonald/ofxFaceTracker https://github.com/kylemcdonald/ofxFaceTracker And if they need to go the commercial route, there’s FaceAPI http://www.seeingmachines.com/product/faceapi/ http://www.seeingmachines.com/product/faceapi/ " Source: http://electronica.fm/news/110714/music-your-face-artist-kyle-mcdonald-talks-face-tracking-music-making-kinect http://electronica.fm/news/110714/music-your-face-artist-kyl...
  - kragen 15y ago
    "Open source" and "non-commercial license" are mutually exclusive. See the Open Source Definition, which is the official definition of the term "open source" by the people who invented it, http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd, point 6, "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor," whose rationale is explained on http://www.opensource.org/osd.html http://www.opensource.org/osd.html: "The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it."
    - cookiecaper 15y ago
      I really hate the hijacking of the term "open source" by the OSI. I think open source is a generic term that should mean what it says -- the source is open, i.e., accessible and modifiable. I don't think that the distribution limitations should go into it. While I certainly appreciate all the open-source projects that allow commercial usage, I really think that a trend of projects using non-commercial or licensee-only licenses would do a lot of good, because as it stands I'd rather have the source code for every program I use even if I'm not allowed to share that code with someone who hasn't paid the original author. I recognize that copyleft and all that is important and good, but I think we'd see much more source availability if people were less rabid about their demands for unlimited distribution. Unlimited distribution is rad but it greatly reduces the effective profitability of the product, and there's some software that just doesn't get made if it doesn't have some cash behind it.
      - kragen 15y ago
        > I really hate the hijacking of the term "open source" by the OSI. The OSI was founded a couple of months after the invention of the term "open-source software", by the same people who invented the term. They aren't the ones who are "hijacking" it. You are. It's dishonest. Please stop doing it, and please stop attempting to rewrite history in order to justify your dishonest attempt to hijack the term. The people who read HN aren't so ignorant that you can fool them that way.
- jrockway 15y ago
  If you write code that you give away, your project is technically open source. After all, you don't have the code that your CPU uses to translate x86 instructions into its internal opcodes, but you can still use an open-source operating system on top of it. In this particular, an interested party would only have to rewrite one library, instead of one library and one application on top of it. So it's a win, even if it's not GNU-certified Free Software.
  - kragen 15y ago
    I'm not claiming FaceOSC isn't open source just because it depends on proprietary software. I'm just trying to clarify the situation — open-source software that I can't practically run is a lot less exciting than what I originally thought this was.
- kylemcdonald 15y ago
  The author of FaceTracker, Jason, is a great guy who you should totally email if you're interested in these ideas. We could have just as easily used asmlib https://code.google.com/p/asmlib-opencv/ https://code.google.com/p/asmlib-opencv/ but FaceTracker is superior in terms of speed, accuracy, and efficiency.
  - kragen 15y ago
    Thanks! I imagine he's overwhelmed with email right now, but I in no way intended to attack Jason or FaceTracker.

by keane 15y ago

kragen 15y ago

So it might be open-source, but depends on the non-open-source (and not even publicly available) project FaceTracker?

keane 15y ago
Kyle McDonald discusses this: "I imagine FaceOSC being used to prototype ideas surrounding face-based interaction. I created it because Jason Saragih, the researcher behind FaceTracker, uses an open source non-commercial license for his code. He asks that anyone who wants to use the code email him directly, as a way to keep track of the usage. This is great, but I know that one of the fastest ways to get cool stuff happening is to make new tools and research accessible to a wide audience. So I asked him if it would be ok to make a standalone app for people to prototype their ideas — even if they don't have access to the code. Everyone already 'speaks' OSC so I thought this would be the easiest way to get the technology out there. Eventually, if people need to integrate it into a single application, they can contact Jason directly and use my ofxFaceTracker addon to get started: https://github.com/kylemcdonald/ofxFaceTracker https://github.com/kylemcdonald/ofxFaceTracker And if they need to go the commercial route, there’s FaceAPI http://www.seeingmachines.com/product/faceapi/ http://www.seeingmachines.com/product/faceapi/ " Source: http://electronica.fm/news/110714/music-your-face-artist-kyle-mcdonald-talks-face-tracking-music-making-kinect http://electronica.fm/news/110714/music-your-face-artist-kyl...
- kragen 15y ago
  "Open source" and "non-commercial license" are mutually exclusive. See the Open Source Definition, which is the official definition of the term "open source" by the people who invented it, http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd, point 6, "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor," whose rationale is explained on http://www.opensource.org/osd.html http://www.opensource.org/osd.html: "The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it."
  - cookiecaper 15y ago
    I really hate the hijacking of the term "open source" by the OSI. I think open source is a generic term that should mean what it says -- the source is open, i.e., accessible and modifiable. I don't think that the distribution limitations should go into it. While I certainly appreciate all the open-source projects that allow commercial usage, I really think that a trend of projects using non-commercial or licensee-only licenses would do a lot of good, because as it stands I'd rather have the source code for every program I use even if I'm not allowed to share that code with someone who hasn't paid the original author. I recognize that copyleft and all that is important and good, but I think we'd see much more source availability if people were less rabid about their demands for unlimited distribution. Unlimited distribution is rad but it greatly reduces the effective profitability of the product, and there's some software that just doesn't get made if it doesn't have some cash behind it.
    - kragen 15y ago
      > I really hate the hijacking of the term "open source" by the OSI. The OSI was founded a couple of months after the invention of the term "open-source software", by the same people who invented the term. They aren't the ones who are "hijacking" it. You are. It's dishonest. Please stop doing it, and please stop attempting to rewrite history in order to justify your dishonest attempt to hijack the term. The people who read HN aren't so ignorant that you can fool them that way.
jrockway 15y ago
If you write code that you give away, your project is technically open source. After all, you don't have the code that your CPU uses to translate x86 instructions into its internal opcodes, but you can still use an open-source operating system on top of it. In this particular, an interested party would only have to rewrite one library, instead of one library and one application on top of it. So it's a win, even if it's not GNU-certified Free Software.
- kragen 15y ago
  I'm not claiming FaceOSC isn't open source just because it depends on proprietary software. I'm just trying to clarify the situation — open-source software that I can't practically run is a lot less exciting than what I originally thought this was.
kylemcdonald 15y ago
The author of FaceTracker, Jason, is a great guy who you should totally email if you're interested in these ideas. We could have just as easily used asmlib https://code.google.com/p/asmlib-opencv/ https://code.google.com/p/asmlib-opencv/ but FaceTracker is superior in terms of speed, accuracy, and efficiency.
- kragen 15y ago
  Thanks! I imagine he's overwhelmed with email right now, but I in no way intended to attack Jason or FaceTracker.