5 ms·

Kyle McDonald discusses this: "I imagine FaceOSC being used to prototype ideas surrounding face-based interaction. I created it because Jason Saragih, the rese

by 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.
    - chc 15y ago
      What's the correct term, in your opinion?
      - ceejayoz 15y ago
        I've heard the term "shared source" used.
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - pessimizer 15y ago
        How about "The source code is available"?
      - alttag 15y ago
        Isn't this why we have the disambiguators gratis and libre? Or, if you prefer, “... as in beer” and “... as in speech.”
      - Retric 15y ago
        I don't think he cares he was clearly just trolling.
    - ShirtlessRod 15y ago
      Are you really going to claim that no one has ever used the generic term "open source" prior to the folks in the OSI?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

by keane 15y ago

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.
  - chc 15y ago
    What's the correct term, in your opinion?
    - ceejayoz 15y ago
      I've heard the term "shared source" used.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
    - pessimizer 15y ago
      How about "The source code is available"?
    - alttag 15y ago
      Isn't this why we have the disambiguators gratis and libre? Or, if you prefer, “... as in beer” and “... as in speech.”
    - Retric 15y ago
      I don't think he cares he was clearly just trolling.
  - ShirtlessRod 15y ago
    Are you really going to claim that no one has ever used the generic term "open source" prior to the folks in the OSI?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]