On 14/03/2007, at 2:24 PM, Darran Edmundson wrote:
> Are there major differences between the GPL version of ARToolkit
> (2.72) and the version released under a commercial license?
Yes, there are major differences. Some of the enhancements in the
commercial version are summarised here: http://www.artoolworks.com/
> Searching through the list archives though, I came across this
> comment from Daniel Wagner:
> "ARToolKit is still actively developed too, but in a different
> direction ... I don't think that changes to the vision core itself can
> be expected anymore since there haven't been any such changes for
> and then this is where the commercial ARToolKit version 4 is placed."
> This makes me think that the commercial version is (4-2.72)/2.72 =
> 47% ahead of the GPL version ;-) Is this even a partially correct
Yes, this is correct. ARToolKit version 4 represents a continuation
of the development of the core ARToolKit which was released under
various version numbers from 1.x to 2.x. The fiducial tracking which
is at the core of ARToolKit and derivatives (and which has also been
replicated by various other libraries) is relatively stable.
Development efforts at the University of Osaka and the HIT Lab NZ at
the University of Canterbury since ARToolKit was first released under
the GPL have focussed on other interesting areas of research in AR.
These include the planar natural feature tracking which is available
as ARToolKit NFT, and the osgART framework. osgART is focussed on the
wider coding problems in AR - integration of tracking into higher-
level graphics programming, flexible architectures for tracking, and
photometric registration (e.g. shadows, HDR lighting, reflection and
I should point out that it is our intention (speaking for ARToolworks
and HIT Lab NZ) to continue to release code which is currently
licensed under proprietary models under open source models, when we
can reasonably make such a release. The release of the osgART
Standard Edition under the GPL is one such recent release.