On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Bill Morris <
morris@ee.ccny.cuny.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-12-19 at 12:46 -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote:
>> I think it would help for the ROS community to support an official
>> usb_camera package, like we did for camera1394. The potential user
>> base is large.
>>
>> There seem to be several good drivers available in various
>> repositories. Paradoxically, that can make it harder for users to
>> decide which to use. A combined, fully documented and reviewed
>> implementation would make that easier and save time for most camera
>> users.
>>
>> If Eric, Ken, or someone else knowledgeable about these devices would
>> be willing to do the technical work, I can help move it through the
>> release review process. Maybe we could get it done in time for
>> inclusion in Diamondback. Although this is late in the release cycle,
>> no other core ROS components depend on it.
>>
>> Even if not completely ready for the initial Diamondback distribution,
>> it might make sense to release such a package later as an enhancement.
>
> I have about 10 different USB cameras to test, and I'm willing to help
> with writing code for this effort.
That would be wonderful! Thanks.
Perhaps some of the other package authors would also be willing to
help. It should save us all work in the long run.
> The only question is do we start from scratch or do we use an existing
> driver?
When we started a similar effort for 1394 cameras, I tried all the
drivers I knew about, and people made additional suggestions on the
list. The first step was to decide which code base to start with, and
then incorporate good ideas from the others.
Although I have not quite gotten there yet with camera1394, I believe
everyone would prefer a BSD license to the GPL. However, if the best
or only immediately available solution is GPL, that would still be
better than none.
Ultimately, choice of code base should be up to the maintainer.
--
joq
(text/plain)