This looks very similar to distributing a picture which is a 2D
rendering of a 3D model without distributing the original model. This is
already accepted in the archive, and the reason is that a 2D picture is
its own source, and can serve as a base for modified versions this way.
I
I mentioned Voxforge in my previous email. Their goal is to use their
free spech data to train models with HTK and use the models with
Julius. You can get the source code of HTK after registration on their
website but the license has severe restrictions so HTK is not free
software. Julius is
Le mercredi 27 mai 2009 à 00:36 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
Of course, the decision is up to the FTP masters, but I think this
should be accepted for the sake of consistency with things we already
cannot decently exclude from the archive.
I instead think that FTP masters should change
2009/5/27 Mark Weyer we...@informatik.hu-berlin.de:
This looks very similar to distributing a picture which is a 2D
rendering of a 3D model without distributing the original model. This is
already accepted in the archive, and the reason is that a 2D picture is
its own source, and can serve
I agree with you. In particular, in many cases a single 3D model is used
to create many 2D images. If you don't have the model, you need to do
the modification many times.
And then there is the case of increasing the resolution...
I don't know if it would be technically possible to go to
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:33:52AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Disclaimers, of course: IANADD, TINASOTODP (and IANAL, TINLA).
If you really feel the urge to add meaningless acronyms to all your
emails, please do so in your signature.
Better yet: he should recognize that the reason he
I know I should not reply to polemic posts because it is just one step
short of troll-feeding, but anyway:
I suggest you start your own distribution, in which you won’t ship:
* xfonts-* (bitmap renderings of non-free vector fonts)
I agree that these do not belong in a free distribution.
On Wed, 27 May 2009 11:25:09 +0900 Mathieu Blondel wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 7:36 AM, Francesco Poli wrote:
I think that in the case of machine learning models, source form is
even more clearly distinct from compiled object.
We can consider an artificial neural network, for instance
On Wed, 27 May 2009 11:36:55 +0200 Mark Weyer wrote:
[...]
Extremes: I do not agree with this classification of my view.
I value a free game for the fact, that I can fool around with the source
to make it better. Adding features, levels, characters. If this means
that I have to add long ears
On Wed, 27 May 2009 10:33:52 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 27 mai 2009 à 00:36 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
[...]
I instead think that FTP masters should change their minds about 2D
images rendered from 3D models.
I suggest you start your own distribution, in which you
On Wed, 27 May 2009 11:37:56 +0200 Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:33:52AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Disclaimers, of course: IANADD, TINASOTODP (and IANAL, TINLA).
If you really feel the urge to add meaningless acronyms to all your
emails, please do so in your
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
[specific person]'s posts are an inappropriate use of this mailing
list and not productive, and [they should] stop posting.
On what are you basing your judgement of “appropriate use of this
mailing list”? Can you give specific examples of posts you
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it wrote:
Afterall, a model is just a big set of numbers.
Machine code is just a long sequence of 0s and 1s...
I knew someone would come up with this :-)
Let me summarize and please correct me if I'm wrong.
* The model alone
Mathieu Blondel math...@mblondel.org writes:
* The model alone can be distributed under a free license.
- As a consequence of this, neither the original data nor the program
to build the model need to be free.
Going by the FSF definition of a free work, specifically freedom 1 and 3
14 matches
Mail list logo
