Hi, I've seen that you've deleted the reference to ndOpenCV in the Wikipedia page.
a) Nanodesktop doesn't require an illegal modification of the PSP firmware. ndOpenCV works perfectly also on the original Sony PSP firmware (1.5), so the concept is simply false.
It won't run on the original 1.5 firmware without the % filename exploit. The only firmware revision that could run unsigned binaries was 1.0 and units with that firmware revision has been sold in Japan only for a short period of time.
In any case, the % filename exploit isn't an illegal modification of the PSP firmware. And it is a shared concept that the changes of the PSP firmware isn't illegal. It makes that the warranty decades but it isn't illegal. For example, in Italy it is activity protected by specifical laws (if you're italian, I can send you the references about this).
b) OpenCV is a project released under BSD license, so everyone can modify it and port it under an embedded platform without any official authorization
That's ok but it's also irrelevant for this discussion.
c) Actually ndOpenCV is the ONLY possibility to use OpenCV under a small device that isn't compatible with the common PC standards (XFree and Unix)
That's also irrelevant and I don't know if what you claim here is true or not but PSP's main processor/memory subsystem isn't fast enough to run the majority or the algorithms available in OpenCV.
This is not true, for 2 reasons. The former is that PSP has a VFPU unit, that is able to execute 2.3 GFlops/sec. of floating point operation. ndOpenCV uses this component and in this way it obtains the necessary power for computations. The second is that ndOpenCV can work not only on PSP, but on every platform that will be supported by nd in the future. In fact, nd has been designed with the goal of a quick portability of the OpenCV libraries under every embedded platform. If you want to see the importance of this porting, you can look for Nanodesktop Blind Assistant or for the CamShift Demo, or for the other nd OpenCV applications:
Using this porting, we've executed PentLand face recognition, Lucas-Kanade optical flow, Viola-Jones face detection, SIFT recognition. And this with good performance.
Cheap embedded hardware with a fast processor that will run unsigned binaries is available from many vendors.
Yes, but with a cost very very higher, and with a minor standardization. Second point: if you want to execute OpenCV on your palmtop, you need to execute Intel HighGUI. This component requires the presence on the system of the original Windows API, or of the GTK libraries. If your palmtop isn't compatible with the original Win32 API (Windows CE requires changes in OpenCV source code to compile), or with XFree/GTK, the OpenCV cannot natively run. And in fact, if you look for OpenCV applications that run on a palmtop device, you'll discover that they are very few.
No new PSP is sold with 1.0 or 1.5 kernel anymore, PSP slim and PSP brite can't natively run those versions and downgrading requires hacking anyway. So, in the end, ndopencv is a kinda pointless port.
This is absolutely false, because ndOpenCV shall allow the execution of the OpenCV over any platform that shall be supported by nd in the future and it is impossible, actually, to execute OpenCV on a handheld device without passing through the nd solution, or changing heavily the original source code for Windows CE.
HighGUI isn't a requirement for the core OpenCV library and I don't understand why you can't just compile OpenCV itself for the target platform and then use the native widget set offered by that platform. Maybe this discussion should be moved to the OpenCV talk page so that other people can weight in the argument. Maybe a link to Nanodesktop and ndOpenCV should be added to Psp homebrew rather than on the OpenCV's page. -- Femmina (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Femmina, without HighGUI, you haven't cvCreateWindow/cvDestroyWindow, the access to the webcam, the mouse callbacks, the feature of loading/saving image files from disk (in brackets, porting the original Intel HighGUI code requires the porting of the different graphical libraries for the several supported image formats under the new platform; in ndOpenCV they are already ported), you loss the cvConvertImage routine. So, if you try to compile any OpenCV source that you can find in the original Intel package (samples), and that you can find in any other website, the program shall not work. Furthermore, in the cxcore library, cxswitcher must be modified (it contains code in x86 assembly that must be replaced), cxerror contains calls to the original widget that can be replaced. If your embedded device uses particular functions or hardware units for mathematical acceleration (as PSP does), you must change the Intel code to utilize them. I repeat you: actually nd is the only way to execute the OpenCV programs and sources on an embedded device that doesn't support XWindow manager without big difficulties.
You can have all those things using the native platform API. Also, I've not examined every single source file of the core library, but I think there is no mandatory inline assembly anywhere, but even if there is some then what do you expect? Intel started that project. One more reason to use PC104 hardware or something similar instead of an hacked PSP. -- Femmina (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This is, simply, absurd. Please, explain me how you can execute a simple cvCreateWindow using the platform API. My impression is that you are creating excuses on excuses for justifying the erasing of the voice. But there is no technical reason: it was only an arbitrary act done by you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
You don't understand that you never need to call cvCreateWindow. On the target platform you call the generic function to open a window, allocate a drawable surface and then use simple loops to copy to and from opencv matrices to the native drawable surface. It's simple. -- Femmina (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
You don't have OpenCV then. You've a part of OpenCV (cxcore). And this is totally unuseful. To have OpenCV compatibility, means to have the compatibility with the "OpenCv source code". For example, if I want to executed the template matching, I must recompile this program:
And this must be done only with small changes. The researchers download by the net the programs, and want to recompile and use on own platforms without troubles. But, if I must replace cvNamedWindow, cvShowImage, cvLoadImage, cvSaveImage, cvGrabImage, cvSetMouseCallback with my platform code... the entire discussion becomes ridicolous. For the mathematical acceleration, what do you suggest ? Rewrite entire cxcore and cv, to make them compatible with own processor ? And when the software shall be ported on a different embedded platform, shall you have to rewrite all hacks that you've created ?
OpenCV isn't official supported by Intel for Cell processor, too. But, strange thing, the citation is done. I repeat: there is no technical reason for your erase of my voice. The porting is very important because it is lack of sense to say that it is possible to use OpenCV without HighGUI. If you're italian, I'm very glad to discuss about this with you via email. Otherwise, do what you want, but your behaviour with me wasn't correct in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Please, move this discussion in the OpenCV area if you retain that it's better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
^^ PSP pirates please follow this advice and avoid cluttering my talk page with made up technical explanations. Thanks. -- Femmina (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
are you an idiot?, he gave you clear and perfectly understandable technical reason's for his justification of reasons for porting to the psp, you yourself decided to ignore these reason's competly, please, if your going to remove stuff, don't get owned in the process=-)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi! You've just discovered the magic of open proxies don't you? -- Femmina (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
u wish, no the main user that you were arguing with decided to post your moron way's on a respected psp development site, i took it apon myself to make the above actions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
You mean respected psp piracy site? -- Femmina (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Femmina, see this site: http:// visilab . unime . it
Is it a piracy site for you ? But do you understand that you're defending positions that are simply absurd ? (Filippo Battaglia)
What you mean? -- Femmina (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow, honestly, you should take a step back, their's a huge diffrence between development of one's applications on the psp(homebrew), and piracy, piracy is the downloading of something created by people with the intent of selling, and yet not paying for the application and/or game(such as an ISO, CSO, etc), do not, AND I REPEAT, DO NOT, confuse piracy with homebrew, homebrew, is the creation of an application and/or game, without the intent of selling, and is placed on the free market, for use by anyone and everyone freely, and is in no way illegal, secondly, if sony truely felt these actions were illegal, people such as DARK_ALEX,and Teams such as Noobz, C+D, M33, and such, would already be under arrest, sued, and have been given ceist and desist orders on many occasion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Dark Alex's identity is kept secret for exactly that reason. Now go away from my talk page. I don't want you to further promote game piracy here. Thank you in advance. -- Femmina (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely false. The development of free applications for Sony Playstation Portable is activity allowed by the civil rules of all European States, because it is part of the right of ownership. Visilab Research has even done a juridical research about the problem, and Pegasus has written an entire paragraph about the argument. The recent sentences of the judges has stated the total and absolutely legality of the operation. And the recent declarations done by Sony management, has done clear that the installation of a custom firmware is a legal activity; the only trouble can be the loss of the warrancy, but the operation is fully allowed. Naturally, we can provide you all references about the sentences of the tribunals that say what I said. In Italy, the operation is even allowed by a specifical law, that allows the reverse engineering by the final user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Give references (as in links to credible sources) on appropriate places. Stop babbling here. I don't care and nobody else will read what you write if you do it here and you don't provide references. -- Femmina (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
[... text in Italian...]
Declarations of the Sony management about the legality of the custom firmware:
wikipedia. org /wiki/Psp_homebrew
Sony has told the media that any issues resulting from running modified code on the device would void the warranty. They have also stated that the problem is not with homebrew but piracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the copy and paste from wikipedia. I really appreciate it, but that says nothing about the legality of the custom firmware (CFW) itself which is not "clean" of sony's code. It says you can reflash your own console, whitch is not surprising, that's all. And besides that my understanding is that the DMCA forbids the act of enabling piracy on a device, and we are on the english wikipedia in case you didn't notice. What sony's management said, legally speaking, is worthless. And again, by writing here on my talk page you're just wasting your time. -- Femmina (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
You're wrong again, because DMCA has also, like the italian law, an article that makes legal the reverse engineering for scope of interoperability of own programs: chillingeffects. org/reverse/
When creative expression is protected by a technological protection measure, the situation becomes even more complex. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) generally prohibits circumvention of technological protection measures. On its face, since circumvention is generally required for reverse engineering, this prohibition would prevent reverse engineering of those measures that control access to a copyrighted work. The DMCA contains a limited exception to the ban on circumvention, which permits reverse engineering of the technology by specific classes of people for limited purposes [17 USC §1201(f)]. The exception allows reverse engineering of computer programs if the reverse engineer lawfully obtains the program, seeks permission from the copyright owner, only uses the results of their efforts to create an interoperable computer program and does not publish the results. The resulting program must only interoperate with the reverse engineered software, however, and cannot interoperate with the technologically protected content (movie, book, video game, etc.) itself. Under the DMCA, engineers may also develop programs that facilitate reverse engineering for their own use or the use of others if they meet the above test. Reverse engineers must carefully consider their planned work and whether it fits into the exception, because the exception is far too narrow to be useful for many reverse engineering needs.
And, as I'm tired of your arrogant behaviour, I advice you that I'm ready to create a case again you and again Wikipedia, because your reasons are simply pretestual... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Sir, again what you copied and pasted here is not quite relevant to what I just asked. But please do create a case against me. If you think that will help you... -- Femmina (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Wait, wait... Did I read that right? You're going to report me and Wikipedia to the police because your project is not going to be included on Wikipedia? Is that what you just wrote? -- Femmina (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I haven't used the word "police". It isn't the case, and I've never thought what you say... But I would that you understand that your behaviour isn't acceptable. And the fact that six-seven people think that you're absolutely WRONG (in Italy and in England) means something (in my opinion)... Perhaps are you really wrong ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
That's a bummer. I was already dreaming of myself in a courtroom defending the honor of Wikipedia. However, just look around here you'll find something to involve somebody else in the dispute. Be sure to mention the fact that you think I'm a troll. And please do register an account already. -- Femmina (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)