To whom it may concern. Hi, I am Package maintainer of OpenCV in Debian [0]. I have e-mail in order to receive views on patent from you.
The Original OpenCV source code has patent issuse[1][2][3]. I already 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[4]. However, it has received a request to distribute the Debian code that includes this patent from the user, and wanting to provide for Debian nonfree module. I believe it is possible to remove from the package source code that has a problem, it does not distribute nonfree module is correct, but IANAL. I think I would like to have an opinion from the patent in charge of Debian. Could you the views of the Debian and opinion? Best regards, Nobuhiro [0]: http://packages.qa.debian.org/o/opencv.html [1]: https://github.com/Itseez/opencv/blob/master/modules/nonfree/doc/nonfree.rst [2]: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/ja/WO2007128452 [3]: http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~lowe/keypoints/ [4]: http://www.debian.org/legal/patent 2014/1/8 Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <iwama...@nigauri.org>: > 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 -- 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
