I think that standing on ceremony over the licencing terms of a relatively trivial piece of software is a bit silly, if it risks creating that problem.
If code released under more relaxed licensing agreements, is greater then the existing code, then it makes sense that this new code, would be universally adopted. You yourself, have hinted that the existing code is relatively trivial, and is a likely candidate for improvement.
ML is a development project aimed at providing extended features to Canon EOS cameras. No more, no less.
The existing code has been developed, as a means of testing the functionality added to the camera. Anyone with a hint of technical prowess, or common-sense, can understand that it is rather difficult to test features such as raw recording, without a means to view the content.
Second to that, an open source code base is created, where-by, other developers can view the existing code, for a basic understanding of the requirements.
we gave you a proof of concept that you found useful
Here is where the breakdown appears to be happening. Some people seem to be of the opinion, that the original author is responsible for a polished end user product. To be honest, if a1ex was only concerned with raw recording, and more specifically, providing that functionality, as a polished end user product, and/or, the means by which, other users can benefit from his hard work, by profiting. Had every waking hour,
unpaid, to develop polished end user products, then I could probably somewhat agree.
The fact that this particular piece of code is relatively trivial, is completely beside the point.
If I understand you correctly Thomas, if the vertical line code contained, say, 1,000,000 lines of code, you would agree with the wishes of the developer of that code?
Not to mention, what happens if someone wants to take another piece of trivial code, and use that within a paid application, while violating the GPL? Should a1ex relent again, and release this code as LGPL also? What about another piece of code? And another? And another? Heck, why not simply release the entire code base as LGPL? I mean, think of the users right. They would benefit greatly from paid application developers being able to use this code,
as they see fit. And that's all that matters, right!
Well, there's no hard "end goal", it's more like a hobby project where we try to push the cameras beyond their limits, while also sharpening programming skills and sharing knowledge. Everybody here is working on their spare time (and I happen to have a bit more time because my daily job is not a 9 to 5 one). Also, everybody is free to work on whatever he feels like; there's no hard to-do list.
I come from a research background, so I like to experiment with cutting edge techniques. And of course, I like sharing these tools with other people that may find them useful and can improve these things.
For metadata (WB and a ton of other settings), just read the MLV thread, this is work in progress. Synced audio is pretty hard (but not impossible), and I don't have any use for it myself, for example. On the other hand, dual ISO is something I'd use in over 80% of my pics (since I like to shoot in very tricky lighting conditions). I don't shoot professionally, but I shoot some events for friends every now and then (not paid work, just hobby level, and mostly photos and sometimes timelapse).
Anyway. For me, the end goal is not to provide a finished product that everybody can consume. I'd rather see it as an open software platform where others can program their own enhancements and share them with the community (which actually happens to some degree). I prefer it to be a little on the nerdy side and attract knowledgeable people and enthusiasts; after all, ML is a tool for power users.
