Open wookey opened 9 years ago
RemiArnaud
commented
9 years ago those are probably old, maybe not even in 1.4.1 version
If you are looking for test files, there are several in the test suite: https://github.com/KhronosGroup/COLLADA-CTS/tree/master/StandardDataSets with proper Khronos licensing.
(note that some test files are testing for errors, so they are broken by design) But you can certainly find a few files to include in your distribution there.
RemiArnaud
commented
9 years ago awesome, thx! On Oct 14, 2015, at 7:04 AM, wookey notifications@github.com wrote:
Almost all the test files are under a non-free licence (Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial Share Alike) and so cannot be shipped in distributions such as Debian. (It's the 'NonCommercial' that makes it non-free). I don't know how useful these test files are, but if they are useful it would be good to ask upstream if they could re-licence them under a properly free licence. I can't believe that avoiding non-commercial use of these files is very important to the originators anymore. I have a contact at Sony if you don't know who to ask.
Currently the only files we can ship are duck.cstm and duck.dae.gz. Maybe texture.bmp - the licence of that is unclear. Do we know where it came from? Is it actually part of one of the other testcases?
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
wookey
commented
9 years ago I'm not yet actually looking for test cases. I'm just pointing out that the ones currently in the tarballs/repo are not actually free software. I don't think the build currently runs any tests? (I tried to get the tests working in the version in the sourceforge repo and there seemed to be a lot of bitrot so that it wouldn't actually build - I gave up after a while).
It sounds like using the above Khronos test files would make sense. I don't know how much work is involved there. As a distro we'll just package whatever you deem sensible, so long as it's actually free software.
RemiArnaud
commented
9 years ago I have a question for you.
Why including collada-dom (which is rather old) and replaced with https://github.com/KhronosGroup/OpenCOLLADA (a while ago) ?
wookey
commented
9 years ago +++ Rémi Arnaud [2015-10-16 12:29 -0700]:
I have a question for you.
Why including collada-dom (which is rather old) and replaced with https:// github.com/KhronosGroup/OpenCOLLADA (a while ago) ?
I worked on it because ROS (Robot OS) uses it and we are trying to get it all packaged. I had not realised that opencollada was a replacement for collada-dom. I had assumed that they were complimentary and collada-dom used opencollada, or something. (I don't exctually understand very much about this whole ecosystem yet - I'm just finding out).
OpenCOLLADA doesn't look like a drop-in replacement from a quick glance at the code, but perhaps it is? It's up to upstream really. I'm just packaging whatever is needed, but as you say it's a somewhat crufty codebase (although rdiankov's version seems much better than the old sourceforge pile) so if there is potential to drop it for something with a more active upstream then that sounds sensible.
Principal hats: Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM http://wookware.org/
RemiArnaud
commented
9 years ago openCOLLADA is not compatible at all with collada-dom. It does replace the feature, but very different programming model and API.
openCOLLADA is used by OpenSource software like Blender for example.
this said, there are maybe some software depending on collada-dom ?
lepalom
commented
8 years ago In ROS, liburdf, collada-parser. Also, openrave
Almost all the test files are under a non-free licence (Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial Share Alike) and so cannot be shipped in distributions such as Debian. (It's the 'NonCommercial' that makes it non-free). I don't know how useful these test files are, but if they are useful it would be good to ask upstream if they could re-licence them under a properly free licence. I can't believe that avoiding non-commercial use of these files is very important to the originators anymore. I have a contact at Sony if you don't know who to ask.
Currently the only files we can ship are duck.cstm and duck.dae.gz. Maybe texture.bmp - the licence of that is unclear. Do we know where it came from? Is it actually part of one of the other testcases?