Apple Closes OpenNI the Open Source Kinect Framework 82
mikejuk writes "The OpenNI website, home to the widely used framework for 3D sensing, will be shut down in April. When, in November 2013, Apple bought PrimeSense for $350 million, people speculated how this would affect the Capri mobile technology but no mention was made of what would happen to OpenNI, the open source SDK most often used as an alternative to Microsoft's closed SDK for the Kinect. After Apple acquired PrimeSense, its website quickly shut, but the Developers link still points to Open NI. The status of OpenNI is a not-for-profit whose framework allows developers to create middleware and applications for a range of devices, including the Asus Xtion Pro. It claims to be a widely used community with over 100,000 active 3D developers."
Why the negative doomsday tone? (Score:4, Insightful)
"...Fortunately the code will continue to be available via GitHub..."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not Kinect specific.
Re: (Score:2)
That one doesn't connect to iOS devices either, though. It's just a Kinect clone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
why would you develop an app that uses usb device(possible) connected to an iDevice to to perform 3d scanning? why the fuck wouldn't you..
Re: (Score:2)
RTFS:
It's not Kinect specific.
RTFT:
Apple Closes OpenNI the Open Source Kinect Framework
so yeah, it is Kinect specific.
Re: (Score:3)
You put far too much faith in random stuff you read on the internet. OpenNI is NOT Kinect specific. It works with other sensor systems too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O... [wikipedia.org]
http://www.openni.org/ [openni.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Apache License.
GPL appears to put some hurdles in front of developers wanting to put stuff on the Apple App Store. The Apache License is far more open and has no such restrictions. There's no problem with using it with Apps on the App Store.
Re:Why the negative doomsday tone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it shows how lame Apple is. They are totally comfortable taking open source code to use for themselves, but damned if they'll give anything of value back.
Right, that's why Clang and LLVM are not being developed, or Webkit, or... oh never mind. Sorry kid, I didn't mean to let reality intrude on your blissful state of hate and ignorance.
Re: (Score:3)
Ahh, WebKit, you mean KHTML that Apple STOLE from Konqueror and that Google and Opera had to fix with Blink.
How do you "steal" a GPL project by adopting it and working on it? Isn't that the point of open source? Code that is available for anyone to use and improve (Apple did give give back their changes, as fully stipulated in the licence).
Is it only "stealing" if a company you don't like uses open source code?
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, WebKit, you mean KHTML that Apple STOLE from Konqueror and that Google and Opera had to fix with Blink.
How do you "steal" a GPL project by adopting it and working on it? Isn't that the point of open source? Code that is available for anyone to use and improve (Apple did give give back their changes, as fully stipulated in the licence).
Is it only "stealing" if a company you don't like uses open source code?
It's stealing credit.
Apple didn't invent Webkit, the forked it from KHTML.
And stealing credit is expressly verboten by the GPL.
Re: (Score:3)
When did Apple steal credit? Apple explicitly lists all their open source [apple.com] contributions.
Apple didn't invent Webkit, the forked it from KHTML.
When did Apple claim otherwise? In fact, Jobs has said they started WebKit from an open source project [apple.com] "For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products."
And stealing credit is expressly verboten by the GPL.
Again, when did Apple actually do that? Apple may not name every single open source contribution every single time in every
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, WebKit, you mean KHTML that Apple STOLE from Konqueror and that Google and Opera had to fix with Blink.
How do you "steal" a GPL project by adopting it and working on it? Isn't that the point of open source? Code that is available for anyone to use and improve (Apple did give give back their changes, as fully stipulated in the licence).
Is it only "stealing" if a company you don't like uses open source code?
It's stealing credit.
Apple didn't invent Webkit, the forked it from KHTML.
And stealing credit is expressly verboten by the GPL.
Ah, so it is what I said - that it's only stealing when a company you don't like does it.
Where exactly did Apple claim to have taken the credit for Webkit? They forked KHTML and explicitly said so, in their public announcement about it and in subsequent official material, including the open letter from Jobs on why Apple din't support Flash on iOS. Nowhere have they ever claimed that it was all their work, and I'm struggling to see what else they could do when forking an OSS project to meet your criteria.
The
Re:Shutdowning (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
PROTIP: When you correct someone's grammar, usage, or mechanics, it's more polite to add a topical comment as well.
What about when you correct someone's slashdot etiquette? Also I hope that Apple is closing this down because next week they're releasing their kinetic-killer embedded in every iPhone! Maybe it's already here they just haven't enabled it yet!
Re: (Score:2)
What about when you correct someone's slashdot etiquette?
I considered that, but I didn't intend for my tip to descend that far meta. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Should I write a journal entry to explain my views on correction etiquette and meta-correction etiquette?
Re: (Score:2)
METAPROTIP: When you meta correct someone's grammar, usage, or mechanics, it's more polite to add a topical comment as well.
BURMA SHAVE
Want to take it meta? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
PROTIP: When you correct someone's grammar, usage, or mechanics, it's more polite to add a topical comment as well.
I'd rather not see a pro forma comment.
Re: (Score:2)
It becomes one with too much exposure to CISCO CLIs.
So fork it (Score:3)
Fork it all!
Apple v. Samsung anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Or a knife.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no gpl3? ouch ouch ouch ouch
Re: (Score:3)
Why fork it? As the summary clearly says, it is still available on github.
Do you have reading comprehension problems?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You assume the people with update rights in that github repository are not interested in patches you submit? Because until that happens, there's no need to fork.
The article did not state that the people who originally created that github are the same people who wrote open NI. Presumably the people who created the github *are* interested in making things better, since they took the trouble to put it on github.
*IF* they are not interested in maintaining it, then yeah, fork it.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Fork the project
2) Let it die
You seem to think there is a third option available to you: keep the project going, but don't fork it. Since you aren't Apple, that option is not available to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Did Apple put it on github? I don't think so. Forking the github repo doesn't make sense if the people who did the original commit are maintaining it.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you STILL doing the fool dance?
Re: (Score:2)
As BasilBrush pointed out, others are committing code to the code posted at GitHub.
It is really sad that you are so damned sure of yourself that you refuse to consider any other alternatives. Perhaps you will grow up one day.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. You can't deal with facts. Sad.
Re: (Score:3)
Says who? Apple bought CUPS - it's still going strong at http://www.cups.org/ [cups.org]
Apple uses FreeBSD as it core, and still pushes patches back to FreeBSD. Apple did fork KDE's browser, but KDE itself is now using the fork, WebKit. LLVM, etc.
Apple wrote Grand Central Dispatch themselves, and open sourced it as well.
http://opensource.apple.com/ [apple.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. You still aren't grasping the concept. Apple is no longer maintaining the project.
You're confused. Apple never was maintaining the project. Apple bought Primesense. OpenNI is a consortium of which Primesense was only one member.
There's no need to fork it. It's on GitHub. Contribute to it. 2 developers other than OpenNI already have.
https://github.com/OpenNI/Open... [github.com]
You seem to think there is a third option available to you: keep the project going, but don't fork it. Since you aren't Apple, that option is not available to you.
You are mistaken.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, yes, that will help. Not. The current generation of hardware will have a driver stack. Effectively meaning that PrimeSense-based projects are dead, because new generation hardware will have a closed stack. PrimeSense in open projects now has no future.
Re: (Score:2)
"We'll do it live!"
The knights who say... (Score:4, Funny)
I guess Apple was worried about the Knights who say (Open) NI!!!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
100,000 active developers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely at least one of them could lead a new project then.
So in November Apple bought a company that has some side project developing Open Kinect software, which obviously has little interest for Apple. This month, they give a heads up that the website for that side project will be shut down. The code for the side project will continue to be available through GitHub.
I'm not seeing much that's rage worthy here. Out of those 100,000 active developers, there is probably at least one that can set up and maintain a website
But it seems like the real complaint is that, since the takeover, there have been no paid staffers supporting the project. That does suck for the developers, but again I don't see why Apple would be obligated to continue that. With 100,000 active developers, I'd think they could each cough up a few bucks to cover a couple salaries if they really cared all that much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Open Source... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's open source. I don't know the license, but I imagine it's likely a GPL/BSD-type license. One should learn that Apple is not the most "open source" friendly OS.
Yes that's why they release Darwin for free. Why they developed LLVM, why they open sourced OpenCL, why they kept CUPS alive, why they continue to develop WebKit. But we shouldn't let facts disturb our bias.
Steal from BSD, as an example, and then release the derivative kernel and shut it down as quickly as one can to avoid raising "too many" suspicions.
Er what? Apple is shutting down a website which they now own. Presumably they do not want to proceed to develop this SDK as it has been developed. The source code is available on GitHub as it always has been. With an open source license, you want to fork it, go ahead; that's what the license was me