#apertus IRC Channel Logs

Are you high? Erf.

morning folks!

good morning

sebastian created T190: adding header bar to phabricator. http://lab.apertus.org/T190

maybe it was before...

anyway, a test (sortable) table for the CMV12000 registers: https://wiki.apertus.org/index.php?title=User:Intracube#CMOSIS_CMV12000_registers

se6astian: yep, I just wanted to make sure there wasn't any NDA issue

Im on the technical department, hopefully the next batch of cameras can be apertus ones

intracube: no NDA issues

comradekingu: cool :) NRK?

intracube: yes, NRK trondheim

context?

looks nice to me

i could go Documentation: Creative Commons by-sa 3.0 Software: GNU gplv3 Hardware: Cern OHL

V3: Rename the "Dictator" to "Governator" ? Come Vote http://lab.apertus.org/V3

V2: Should we invite the team to phabricator? Come Vote http://lab.apertus.org/V2

(ignore labbot, he has a fetish for V*)

are they gplv2 only, or 2+?

https://www.apertus.org/license

"All apertus° software is released under the GNU GPL V3 if not stated otherwise within the softwares source tree."

(or something like that)

is there a particual reason for not running v3 on everything?

comradekingu: home-wip page looks broken here on firefox

top menus?

I dont see how kernel changes are significant enough to warrant any say in how the actual apertus code is licensed

intracube: hmmm i didnt touch that, must be some leftovers

oh, wait. force reload has fixed it

ctrl + r

yeah, there is a cache issue since the beginning

and incerement the number every time

I suppose it should cover images too?

all media CC-BY-SA v3.0?

comradekingu: the CC/GPL/CERN images take up a lot of space

Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike.

a bit too much poetry - "apertus° gives back what has been taken from the user, a return to power where it belongs"

ok, what does that mean in practice?

^ I wouldn't read into it that way

yes, but would you read it, is the issue i think is the decider

Could replace the black camera image with that, i only used it because it looks somewhat like a cinema screen

But isnt all the documentation on the wiki, where its BY-SA-NC ?

comradekingu: yep, the header image is also obscure

What kind of license does the apertus films use?

I presume those are CC as well, but double check with se6astian

difference between 3.0 and 4.0 very unclear http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/

intracube created T191: register table sources. http://lab.apertus.org/T191

time for bed

(Or realistic)

Or is there a (large?) chance that an imager has learned about a rather off-the-path concept from another imager?

Bluntly, 99% of the Libre side is probably moot, doubly so where the price point fixes the project. As a useful bit of “buy one” leverage, good faith and warm and fuzzy feelings are probably so below moot as to be nonexistent comradekingu

Those aren't future facing questions. There is no “It could be!”

Bertl: Addressing which point?

Oh yes. I wasn't really speaking precisely to the Beta.

But the merits of a Libre design aren't exactly clear nor necessarily beneficial, so as a "selling" point it is moot.

doesn't necessarily have to be in this way or form, but I think it is a good approach

at some point in the future, there might be a comparison table on wikipedia, with columns like "can run custom software", "can be reprogrammed as toaster", "can be extended via plugins" etc

Sure. But that is also why Libre design stinks; it plays on could as opposed to should.

I think one problem here is (don't get me wrong, this is quite common) is that freedom per se is not valued

nowadays the situation is reversed, we have only little free (as in speech not beer) software and we take unfree software for granted

that said, this has no impact whatsoever on the quality or feature aspects

But freedom isn't exactly great if

That is, there are large numbers of imagers that have little care, need, ability, time, etc. to adopt the skill set of coding, engineering, etc.

(NOT trying to be contrarian here, and very much valuing the overall goal. Trying to highlight the practical real-world issues here with an imaging device.)

The software _stinks_.

and what I can say for sure about proprietary/closed software is that it is in no way better than open source software

the problem is more that for many areas there is no open source software available, for various reasons

That is an accepted peril when the device performs to the contextual expectation.

you are aware that Tesla designs have been opened and that Apple uses an somewhat open operating system?