Hi, Thanks for your comment.
2014/1/7 Jonas Meurer <jo...@freesources.org>: > Hello, > >> > unfortunately, the Debian OpenCV packages don't provide the SIFT and >> > SURF modules. >> > >> > It seems like these modules were outsourced into a nonfree module, and >> > need to be enabled explicitely at build time with cmake flag >> > "-DBUILD_opencv_nonfree=ON". >> > >> > I didn't check the license of these modules, but as long as it's >> > possible to distribute them in non-free, I suggest to build them (or at >> > least make it easy to enable them at build time by simple flag in >> > debian/rules). >> >> I understand that the processing speed of OpenCV can be improved by >> using a nonfree module. And, I also understand that many users want to >> use this module. >> >> I think you also know that, because it contains the problem of patent, >> I have been removed from the source code in Debian this module. >> I do not know whether there is a need to remove the source code, but >> think of safety, I am that you do not distribute the source code in >> Debian. >> >> http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~lowe/keypoints/ >> >> You can see from the following information about the patent which is for >> Debian. >> http://www.debian.org/legal/patent >> http://www.debian.org/reports/patent-faq.en.html > > > Was it your decision to remove the patent-protected modules from OpenCV > Debian source package? Did you discuss this step with laywers before? > No, I didn't. I removed the non-free code based on the Policy Statement section 1 (Debian will not knowingly distribute software encumbered by patents; Debian contributors should not package or distribute software they know to infringe a patent.) of Debian Position on Software Patents. > I'm not a lawyer and I'm not position to evaluate the scope of the patent in > question. But I've a slightly different point of view. In particular, I > don't think that patent issues should be treated with anticipatory obedience > (no offense intended here). Most patents are only valid in specific > countries anyway, or they're not enforced at all. > To my knowledge, this seems to have been filed in international patent. http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/ja/WO2007128452 > Do you know of any cases where the SIFT patent has been enforced by the > patent holder? > No. I don' t know. I'm thinking patent infringement and it is a thing to prevent in advance. And there is likely to be appealed to the patent holder to Debian. > To my knowledge, software distributed in Debian packages violates several > patents. > > Also, I understand the Community Patent FAQ in a way that it doesn't suggest > to not distribute patent-protected software at all. In particular, source > code distribution shouldn't be a problem at all. Actually, it's not clear > yet from a legal point of view, whether sourcecode distribution violates > patents at all. FLOSS laywers say it doesn't. See section "I have heard that > distributing source code is safer than distributing object code. Is that > true?" in the FAQ. Yes. But IANAL, I have been working on the basis of this document. > > Last but not least, the patent in question is hold by a US university. I > guess chances that they try to enforce the patent against open source > projects i rather low. Maybe one should ask them explicitely? > > I suggest to discuss this issue with pate...@debian.org Yes, I will discuss this. Thanks! > > Kind regards, > jonas > Best regards, Nobuhiro -- Nobuhiro Iwamatsu iwamatsu at {nigauri.org / debian.org} GPG ID: 40AD1FA6 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
