Active Topics
-
The N900 is now 15 years old! (8)
to Nokia N900 by whayong - 6 hrs, 25 mins ago -
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (4)
to SailfishOS by Maemish - 5 days, 2 hrs ago - more...
 |
danramos |
2010-07-09
, 23:05
|
|
Posts: 4,672 |
Thanked: 5,455 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
@ Springfield, MA, USA
|
#11
|
[crickets?]
 |
|
2010-07-10
, 12:27
|
|
Posts: 2,050 |
Thanked: 1,425 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Bucharest
|
#12
|
Bless N900 isn't capturing, it's post-processing images already taken by camera judging by artifacting and quality.
__________________
N900 dead and Nokia no longer replaces them. Thanks for all the fish.
Keep the forums clean: use "Thanks" button instead of the thank you post.
N900 dead and Nokia no longer replaces them. Thanks for all the fish.
Keep the forums clean: use "Thanks" button instead of the thank you post.
|
|
2010-07-10
, 12:32
|
|
Posts: 65 |
Thanked: 27 times |
Joined on Jun 2010
|
#13
|
Why do you insist on calling it open source? I could write a program and release the source code while at the same time prohibit every modification or distribution - that would be a very proprietary program indeed. I suggest you use the term free software instead: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped.../Free_software
[edit: typo]
[edit: typo]
 |
|
2010-07-10
, 14:55
|
|
Posts: 2,427 |
Thanked: 2,986 times |
Joined on Dec 2007
|
#15
|
Not the actual camera app, but you can try:
Then look inside:
And you can also try:
and look around in:
Code:
apt-get source gstreamer0.10-plugins-camera
Code:
tests/icles
Code:
apt-get source libgdigicam-gst-camerabin0
Code:
examples tests
__________________
N9: Go white or go home
N9: Go white or go home
|
|
2010-07-14
, 20:03
|
|
Posts: 4,672 |
Thanked: 5,455 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
@ Springfield, MA, USA
|
#16
|
Originally Posted by barzam
While you may be technically correct in the eyes of the FSF, using "free software" is also ambiguous and might imply "free as in beer" as well. At least, when referring to "open source", this particular audience (and most) understands the context as "free and open source." In any case, bringing it up didn't help the conversation. Chances are my reply didn't either, but hopefully it helped you understand that attempts to issue what you view as a correction on this topic for the satiation of your personal pet-peeve are likely to be unnecessary and impotent even if I agree with you on a technical level.
Why do you insist on calling it open source? I could write a program and release the source code while at the same time prohibit every modification or distribution - that would be a very proprietary program indeed. I suggest you use the term free software instead: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped.../Free_software
