[PD] managing freeframe and frei0r plugins WAS: pidip

[me.grimm]

> Currently in Gem, there is not pix_frei0r,

although i have not used it, i see a [pix_frei0r] in my install. pdx 43.4 osx

> so again a [pix_effectTV], would be very desirable as well

yeah some of those effects look pretty fun...

m



On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Pagano, Patrick
<pat at digitalworlds.ufl.edu> wrote:
> One should be able to cycle through both freeframe and frei0r plugins without having to call it specifically
> Currently in Gem, there is not pix_frei0r, I would love if there was but there are over 100 plugins and there should be a number selector to select which one for example:
> [number 1-x]
> |
> [pix_frei0r]
> |
> [pix_film]
>
> And the same for pix_freeframe instead of for example
> Having to do
>
> [pix_freeframe bloom]
>
> Also one of the nicest features of pidip is the porting of effectTV effects
> http://effectv.sourceforge.net/
>
> so again a [pix_effectTV], would be very desirable as well
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hans-Christoph Steiner [mailto:hans at at.or.at]
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 1:09 PM
> To: me.grimm
> Cc: Pagano, Patrick; pd-list at iem.at; John Harrison
> Subject: managing freeframe and frei0r plugins WAS: pidip
>
>
> I don't use any of this stuff, but I'm happy help make it easy to use plugins.
>  I imagine that pix_freeframe and pix_frei0r search the standard Pd path for plugins, or if not, could be made to without too much work.
>
> What are the particular issues there?
>
> .hc
>
> On 02/07/2013 01:02 PM, me.grimm wrote:
>> if we take into account:
>> pix_freeframe (it would be nice/easy if when initiaized it looked in
>> pd's standard path for a "freeframe" folder maybe?) pix_frei0r (same
>> deal) glsl effects (i never did quite figure out an easy way to chain
>> effects)
>>
>> but other than effects that could be accomplished with these, what else?
>>
>> im curious because i have only used pidip a couple of times but have
>> always been able to find a way to do what i desired in gem... somehow.
>>
>> m
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Pagano, Patrick
>> <pat at digitalworlds.ufl.edu> wrote:
>>> It has a ton of effects that Gem does not have There is not really a
>>> comparison. Gem does not compete so to speak because Gem does other
>>> things supremely well
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: pd-list-bounces at iem.at [mailto:pd-list-bounces at iem.at] On
>>> Behalf Of me.grimm
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:08 AM
>>> To: Hans-Christoph Steiner
>>> Cc: pd-list at iem.at; John Harrison
>>> Subject: Re: [PD] pidip
>>>
>>> i would wonder. what does pidip got that gem does not?
>>> and cant those things that it got that gem does not be added to gem via original gpl code?
>>> why have more than one vid lib
>>> at least in pdx
>>>
>>> m
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm not aware of that.  Perhaps you're thinking about how pidip
>>>> should all be GPL, since it is based on GPL code.  The GPL does not
>>>> allow more license restrictions, and the pidip license does just
>>>> that.  So that means that the GPL code included in pidip is still
>>>> GPL, but the code that sevy contributed is under his license, and
>>>> those two licenses conflict. So basically, pidip is not legal to
>>>> distribute in binary form because of the conflicting licenses within itself.
>>>>
>>>> Whether you choose to ignore copyright law is your decision.  I am
>>>> personally fine with people distributing pidip as its own thing and
>>>> using it with any of my code as long as:
>>>>
>>>> 1) the pidip distro is clearly marked as non-free
>>>> 2) pidip is not bundled with my GPLed code (i.e. as part of
>>>> pd-extended, pd-l2ork, etc.)
>>>>
>>>> .hc
>>>>
>>>> On 02/06/2013 11:44 AM, John Harrison wrote:
>>>>> I thought there was an earlier version of PiDiP which was and could
>>>>> be included with Pd-extended because it was released under an
>>>>> acceptable/compatible license?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just be aware that pidip is not free software because it has
>>>>>> clauses in its license that restrict what it can be used for.
>>>>>> Including pidip in your package means your package can no longer
>>>>>> be legally distributed as binaries since the pidip license terms conflict with the GPL license terms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .hc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/06/2013 09:27 AM, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
>>>>>>> I just finished cleaning up both pdp and pidip libs to be fully
>>>>>> auto-buildable
>>>>>>> as part of pd-l2ork (including freenect, artoolkit, opencv, etc.).
>>>>>>> There
>>>>>> are a
>>>>>>> number of packages you need to install from launchpad in order to
>>>>>>> get
>>>>>> all the
>>>>>>> externals to build. Stay tuned for the next release coming soon
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>> these
>>>>>>> enhancements...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
>>>>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>>>>>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
>>>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>>>>>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>>>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ____________________
>>> m.e.grimm | m.f.a | ed.m.
>>> megrimm at gmail.com
>>> _________________________________
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>
>>
>>



-- 
____________________
m.e.grimm | m.f.a | ed.m.
megrimm at gmail.com
_________________________________